Star Trek Fans Break A World Record, And Think Into Darkness Is The Worst Film Of The Franchise

fb share tweet share

star wars fansThis past weekend, 1,085 costumed fans attending the Star Trek convention at the Rio Las Vegas Hotel and Casino broke the world record for the largest number of costumed Trek fans all in one place, beating out the U.K. record of 1,063 set last year. While it kind of seemed obvious that it would happen, given the rabid fervor that takes over when Americans find out other people have done something better, I’m not sure anyone could have predicted the attendees’ tastes in the film franchise. A poll was held at the One Trek Mind Live panel, where fans ranked their favorite films in order, and the results are stunning.

How did people feel about J.J. Abrams’ latest effort, Star Trek Into Darkness? Apparently they would have been perfectly fine if it never existed, as it came dead last. Yeah, it finished after Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. I have to assume the wounds are still fresh from this one, and that it might rank higher in another few years, once the John Harrison dust has settled. After all, Abrams’ initial reboot finished in sixth place, so it’s obviously not just hatred for the man himself. But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe some people just really hate Into Darkness that much. Stay tuned until after the third Star Trek flick comes out, and I’ll let you know.

It’s no surprise that Wrath of Khan took the top honors, and that the first film wasn’t among the fans’ top picks. But sitting dead in the middle of the pack is the most puzzling film on the list, Dean Parisot’s 1999 film Galaxy Quest. Is anyone else scratching their head over this one? Not only was it actually included in this list, no doubt as some kind of joke, but that it actually beat out six other Star Trek films in a poll about actual Star Trek films. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed the hell out of Galaxy Quest, but its inclusion here isn’t nearly as clever as they thought it was. Take a look at the full list below.

star trek fan film rankingIncidentally, do you know who else had a few choice critical words to say about Into Darkness? Captain Jean Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart), that’s who. And Riker (Jonathan Frakes) is quick to point out just how ridiculous certain aspects of the film are. Both men, however, are quite content to look at Carol Marcus in her skivvies. Check out Picard’s thoughts in the video below.

If you haven’t yet, you can catch Into Darkness when it hits shelves on September 10.


  1. flashfast2000 says:

    1085 Star Trek fans can’t be wrong.

  2. zirtoc says:

    Galaxy Quest getting such a high rating tells you all you need to know about this poll.

    • Mike Stirton says:

      I liked that movie for it’s comedic parallels to all those STOS and so on actors making appearances. It was fun to watch…but ya, I would not have rated it higher than any of the ST movies….

    • kcgeek says:

      What exactly, pray tell, is that? If you are going to make an insinuation obviously intended as disparaging or contemptuous, at least try to be less vague about it.

      In any case, I can only assume that this poll doesn’t coincide with your own opinions, and so we must therefore automatically render invalid the opinions of approx 1,000 people (who clearly have more than just a passing fancy for Star Trek, by all appearances)? Arrogant, much?

      • zirtoc says:

        I would suggest reading the article and learning about the topic. That way you, too, do not risk coming across as arrogant, or even worse, ignorant.

  3. ModelMediaEcologist says:

    Dissatisfaction over the new depictions of Khan, Kirk and Spock is understandable. This wasn’t really Star Trek at all. It was Anti-Star Trek. The original Star Trek TOS was character driven. Spock was logical, McCoy was emotional, Kirk was the perfect mean between the two who ALWAYS won his fights, even if he had to cheat (Kobayashi Maru anyone?)

    The first Star Trek reboot should have been titled “Star Trek: Kirk Gets Beat Up.” JJ Abrams reimagined a fatherless James T. Kirk who was an undisciplined wild child and yet rises to captain the premier starship in the Federation, but continually has his ass handed to him. Really? Cadets beat him up, Spock beats him up, Nero beats him up. Hell, even Uhura beats him up. McCoy merely abuses him. The original Kirk was no man’s whipping boy.

    In this second attempt JJ Abrams creates an Anti-Trek, where Kirk is reduced to the sacrificial sidekick and Spock is the action hero who beats the master race villain senseless. This is a difference that makes a big difference between the chemistry of the original series and the reboot. The whole point of the Vulcan nerve pinch in Star Trek: TOS was that logical Spock (Prime?) would never (well, almost never) engage in anything so primitive as fisticuffs.

    Add to that a Vulcan physiology that could only get it on once every seven years and you realize that Abram’s Spock is no Spock at all. He’s the TOS James T. Kirk with pointy ears. Kirk is reduced to the role of sacrificial red shirt, even if he is brought back from the dead at the end.

    It’s always nice to reboot a franchise, but when you so fundamentally change the basic elements of a mythos you create a different mythos. Abram’s film is a decent bubblegum summer action film mislabeled “Star Trek”

    • Eugene Joubert says:

      I totally agree, the new movies have been totally mainstreamed. Effects are spectacular though. But comparing to TOS, they missed the target with Spock. I don’t see any resemblance. No offence to Quinto, but he didn’t make up for what he lacks in facial features through his portrayal of the character. He seemed very brooding and moody, even angry, most of the time in both installments. Not calm, calculated, thoughtful or indeed logical. And, the ultimate condescension of Spock was nowhere to be seen! But, I reckon they made a huge improvement on Scotty, Scotty is the most annoying complaining twat in TOS. Karl Urban’s Bones was pretty good, not sure they brought out his racist streak or his calling to humanize all humanoids throughout the universe as completely as they could have though. Old Kirk vs new Kirk, Old Kirk would kick new Kirk’s ass all over the place with his sheer passion and absolute arrogance. But these movies are a sign of the times, All sexed up and no substance. Another thing I felt about it, is how unwesternized the characters of TOS were compared to these movies, Sulu looked proper Japanese, new Sulu looks like your average Joe Shmoe Asian American, Uhura looked exotic though not like she just walked off the plains of Africa but, seemed to not look like your all American “African” American like new Uhura. Chekov was pretty cool and I think he has come to terms with whatever issues he had with Kosaks.

      I feel they missed the mark on the characters and story, but as far as special effects go, these movies kicked ass!

      • Eugene Joubert says:

        the guy on the left, the original half Vulcan, the guy on the right, a Trekkie Cosplay

        • Newk Yuler says:

          How many of us watched Heroes and saw Spock in Quinto long before Quinto played Spock? I mean he LOOKED like he could be Spock, anyway. Being Spock proved itself questionable.

          • Eugene Joubert says:

            It’s his big puppy dog eyes that gave it away. When looking at Nimoy Spock’s eyes, they have the look of a person that could crush you with his brain. Quinto Spock has these big, glossy, baby eyes. You just want to hug him and tell it’ll be ok.

          • Mike Stirton says:

            Nimoy is also a few years older than Quinto when he first played Spock. Something to be said about experience I think. Though I do get your gist about Quinto and the eyes…I’ll pass on the hug, but I will toss him a blankie and teddy bear in the same spirit…lol

          • Jeremy Wessel says:

            Looked like Spock, yes. But he doesn’t have Leonard Nimoy’s voice.

      • Christopher Tkachuk says:

        About Sulu, which you should know as a fan of the series: Sulu is actually supposed to be Korean, not Japanese. While George Takei is Japanese, John Cho is actually Korean. So, sorry to burst your bubble.

        • Eugene Joubert says:

          Well, I guess both our bubbles have been popped. Unless what is on Wikipedia is rubbish this is what they say. I’ll Google first and post after from now on. (But a Samurai sword is usually associated with the Japanese, He waves one of those around in the Reboot and TOS)

          “Takei recalled Gene Roddenberry wanted the character to represent all of Asia, which symbolized the peace of the Trek universe in spite of the numerous wars in the continent. Roddenberry did not want a nationally specific surname, so he looked at a map and saw the Sulu Sea. “He thought, ‘Ah, the waters of that sea touch all shores’,” the actor recalled, “and that’s how my character came to have the name Sulu.”

          • Shayde says:

            Correct. Roddenberry believed, and also Takei supports that the role wasn’t any specific Asian country, but represents the whole region. Takei has praised Cho in the role many times.

    • Christopher Tkachuk says:

      The point of a reboot using time travel is to create a new mythos to illuminate the old mythos, and to show how the events of that time travel changed everyone’s characters. Of course Kirk gets beat up in the first movie. Instead of a confident captain in his prime in TOS, the first reboot movie Kirk is a rookie officer with a legacy to follow and a chip on his shoulder – with good reason. The original Kirk had his parents around, and had the confidence of years of training when we first meet him. Reboot Kirk very much does not.

      In the second attempt we see more ramifications of the altered timeline. Without his father and other Vulcans around to teach him control, Spock is less Vulcan and more Human. He has not only had less time to learn to control his human emotions, but less guidance overall. Taking that into account, and Kirk’s setbacks and lessons learned, why wouldn’t they have a bit of a role reversal?

      I’m not saying that all the changes are good or even entirely logical changes, but they are understandable changes given the circumstances the characters find themselves in.

      • Mike Stirton says:

        That is precisely how I see it for both of them…Though Spock’s dad is still around, it was his mother who is no more…and lets face it, most of us have strong emotional bonds to our mothers, so it is not hard to imagine Spock having such a hard time dealing with that loss and moving on, especially since, as you put it, he lost his Vulcan base to which I am sure original Spock had a lot of contact with, thus becoming unstable.

        And yes, like others here have stated, the reboot shakes up the canon of the original to allow new stories to surface that are by and large, unpredictable…primarily because we, the audience, are not familiar with the new character’s personality.

        I abhor predictability in stories. I love being surprised by the unexpected. I cannot help but wonder if those hanging on to the TOS canon would be equally fascinated by the “See Spot Run” types of stories. Droll…boring…zzzzzz

        Gotta say, these are the same kinds of arguments thrown out when the reboot of Battlestar Galactica was released…the endless bitching about Starbuck and Boomer both being chics…too many people simply could not handle that and wrote of what is considered amongst the best written sci-fi on TV up to that period, because they did not like those changes. It took some getting used to, but I soaked that in too…loved that series and consider it the best series I personally watched in respect to sci-fi. Most people who never saw the BSG:TOS loved the reboot. I grew up on the TOS, and while I enjoyed it…looking back, like most Glen A. Larson yarns in those days, it was campy and predictable…and watching it over again as an adult many years later, I wondered what I saw as value in that series, or that monstrosity of the sequel, BSG 1984…terrible writing and special effects in most of it…though Richard Hatch (Apollo) was very good in his role and I liked that character. Outside of a very hot looking Jane Seymore, I saw little in quality in the series, both, overall. The reboot was awesome. Same goes for Caprica…pity it was cancelled so soon…it was just starting to take off…everyone found their groove as it were…

        • RoyalEF says:

          I loved BSG, it put the original to shame. However, I don’t so much care about how the characters change who they are as people. But a Captain, needs to be a friggin’ Captain. Otherwise give the job to someone else. I’d have to rewatch the 2009 one, but do you really go from Cadet to your own Flagship Starship? Do volcanoes really freeze all the way down to the magma core of the planet (which would shutdown the planet’s core–ending life on that planet). Obviously Prime Directive is a useless phrase. Do Spock really call his “uncle” for advice? Do three bridge officers really get distracted during a critical, life endangering mission by having a “couple fight.” And the Captain is helpless to stop them. LOL There are many reasons why this script has turned people off. And none of them have to do with the personalities of the characters. The original poster has obsessed about things that don’t matter–forest for the trees.

          • Mike Stirton says:

            Well, I have to admit wholeheartedly that I completely am at odds with that Spock-Uhura thing…even if the timeline was not changed up to that point for everyone, I doubt Spock would have engaged in such folly…It runs counter to subordination rules typical of any military organization.

      • Térence Vigan says:

        I think the point of the timeline reboot is more to let the original timeline untouched so someone else can continue or even make parrallel movies with the Roddenberry’s vision, if this last concept is accepted, with the J.J.Abrams franchise.

        Anyway a reboot is a reboot. Make things differents when you make one or it has merely no sense.

        • RoyalEF says:

          Time Travel is most often a hack used by writers who can’t find anything interesting or compelling to write. The older the ST universe gets the more the Deus Ex Machina of Time Travel will be used to hack a fake reason to regurgitate everything that was already done. Comic books (ESPECIALLY Marvel) have been doing it for 30+ years. Interesting material and characters are hard to create. Instead they run the same character simultaneously in multiple series, and then spawn universes and re-hash what they already did instead. Much easier to plagiarize and rip yourself off, like a soap opera that keeps telling endless stories with the same characters for 30 years.

      • kickballjedi says:

        Spock’s personality shouldn’t have changed much from TOS Spock’s. Both were raised on Vulcan (his childhood unaffected by Nero), he was picked on for his 1/2 human heritage, and he went in front of the Vulcan high council at the same age when he decided to join Starfleet. None of these events were changed in the new timeline. But now Vulcan is destroyed and his mother killed. These are different for the new Spock, but he should be able to handle these events as he would’ve in TOS; with logic and intellect. To think the loss of his mother or home world would’ve made TOS Spock snap and turn into an emotional, irrational ass is ridiculous.

        • Christopher Tkachuk says:

          What if you were away on vacation out of the country and the city you lived in was hit with a nuclear bomb. You don’t think you would have a lot of difficulty in dealing with that? I would. You have to also remember that they are not as old as they were back in TOS. Spock has not had as much time to learn to push his human emotions aside, especially in the presence of humans, in a human society in which he finds himself after his homeworld has been destroyed. I find, however, that throughout both movies he acts quite logically for most of the movie, until a tragedy triggers his emotions.

          • RoyalEF says:

            In the opening scene of STID Spock doesn’t do anything logical. The science of the whole opening scene makes no sense. Apparently he froze the magma layer of the planet which fuels a volcano. It will only erupt again. If the entire crust of a planet can’t hold a volcano down, why would his little frozen cap? He clearly violates the Prime Directive. How does he know this primitive culture is the one that should be saved? The volcano may have created the foothold for another lifeform that in a million years would have been far more important. His interference changed the natural order. Apparently he isn’t a fan of Evolution. He creates a device that he must hand-wind the clock to 2 minutes, requiring he be lowered into an exploding volcano. As opposed to the Enterprise beaming it down instantly from above. The transporters do work from orbit on some days. They could transport him out but not in. And since the “cold fusion wave” travelled across the entire island and frozen all active lava, could it have be detonated anywhere? Did they really save the culture? They steal an idol to get them to chase them out of the kill zone. Who chases them? Babies in cribs? Women? Children? Or was the only thing in the kill zone a single temple? The whole opening was silly and illogical.

    • Mike Stirton says:

      But that was the point…the older series’ and movies canon was set in place and there was little room for deviation in the story lines, with exception to the few episodes that touched some of the first set of tv series…the alternate reality of Evil Kirk, Evil Nerys (SG9) or the prequel explanations of the alternate reality created in one of the final episodes of Enterprise. Cannot recall if Voyager did any episodes like that or not…Each one of these episodes were amongst the best of each series IMO…because it shook up the ST canon enough to make it interesting and introduce new story line possibilities…DS9 made full use of it and spun a few more episodes that included that alternate reality. They were all, by and large, unpredictable. And that was the beauty of it all. Keeping the canon as it was, just led to more of the same kinds of stories. I like variety in the stories I chew up, and those episodes delivered that in spades.

      And the reboot did much the same…it was unpredictable…who could have predicted Vulcan would be no more prior to seeing it destroyed in the movie (sans spoilers), or that Spock’s mother would die? You speak of Kirk always winning his fights…PREDICTABLE. This shook all of that up. Why is that such a bad thing? Not knowing what is going to happen next is a great thing about doing a reboot the way they did. And that would equally apply to the other characters as well. When Spock in the OS was still feeling out the part, he was also emotional in the beginning. And there were plenty of other episodes that showed his human side come to the fore. And given that he IS half human, and young and relatively undisciplined and of course, add to that the loss of his mother in such a tragic way, I doubt his Vulcan side would be able to control his human side’s emotional reaction to this, so it is easy to see him lose it. This doesn’t mean he has to be emotional…on the contrary…if given the time like STOS to show Spock aging, I am sure like anyone else who ages, they are better able to deal with emotional issues through maturity over time. Even original Spock did not complete some rites that the Vulcans had, to purge all human emotion. Search for Spock somewhat glosses over a little tidbit of this, and Voyage Home underscored it with the question posed him by the computer “how do you feel”, and his mother told him the computer knew he was half human, so the question was pertinent to that part of him. Even the cartoon series portrayed teenager Spock as highly volatile and unable to control his emotions.

      I will heartedly agree with Eugene about casting a Chinese guy in the role of a Japanese character…while the actor did a great job in his role, it was irksome that they could not find a Japanese actor to play that part. About as irksome as getting an Hispanic actor to play the part of an East Indian character. Though on that specific, it was likely unavoidable because Hollywood was doing that all the time…getting white people to play the Native Americans in westerns for example. TV shows from the 60s were not much different, so it made sense to keep Montalban in the part for the movie, despite the obvious racial differences.

  4. Ted says:

    well, i’m fan number 1086, and i thought both JJ films paid tribute to the soul of what made the original trek tv series great, and the characters in JJ films were far more true to the original characters in spirit than all other theatrical releases combined. if all you demand of movie treks is that the characters essentially say the same old lines they did in tv series over and over again, then i can see why you might not enjoy the new trek films. so to the 1085 fans that voted the JJ films dead last, you have all the others to enjoy, but for the love of IDIC, stop being such haters of films that actually strive to give our beloved trek characters a little more to do than open hailing frequencies, engage deflector shields and bellow that the engines canna take it any longer. Now, if only the studios would stop demanding that the writers make every movie a “save the universe from the threat of “insert the latest alien threat here,” and allow a little exploration and wonder of the universe back into the storylines, then we might have something that every fan would embrace. live long and prosper.

  5. Birdman73 says:

    All these classic Trekkers needs to get off of the “JJ ruined my Trek” bandwagon and open themselves up to new ideas. The reboot was necessary – the franchise was dead in the water. JJ forced all fans to use the one thing their pablum-filled minds had forgotten about – imagination. The only way to save “Trek” was to open it up to a whole new generation of fans, which these highly successful and critically acclaimed films has done. Was the whole “khan is superhuman and has resurrection blood” a little far-fetched? No more than warp technology, aliens races that all have two arms and legs, and transporter technology is. But without JJ, Trek would be completely dead with no future in any form.

    • Mark Rude says:

      The problem with “Into Darkness” was that it totally lacked imagination and replaced it with flashy action, stupid set-pieces (Spock lowered into a volcano? Enterprise hiding in the ocean?), and campy references aimed at hitting the nostalgia buttons. Star Trek is about exploration, wonder, social issues, and examining the human condition. Most of the movies got that wrong, especially in later years, but J.J. just slam-dunked the franchise into the crapper.
      I LIKED the cosmetic and character changes, since I long ago got sick of “we fixed everything back the way it was” time-travel stories. My issue with the reboot is that it is missing the brains and spirit of the franchise, leaving only limited character development and special effects. And did you notice that both movies were essentially “Enterprise vs. Much Bigger, More Powerful Ship?” The best movie, STII:TWoK, was a battle between two equal, crippled ships, fueled by Kirk and Khan’s shared past. Who cares if Khan is the villain of “Into Darkness?” It doesn’t MEAN anything.

    • Frank Humungus says:

      You’re absolutely right–it did need to be drastically shaken up. Just imagine if they’d managed to do that without giving us a world where Kirk gets promoted from washout cadet to captain of the Federation flagship, or where we don’t have magic interplanetary transporters that render starships obsolete, or if they’d cared as much about canon as they apparently did about squeezing in pathetic fan wanks or aping Wrath Of Khan. That movie was offensively stupid, and I can’t imagine this well polished turd will mean the same thing to the “new generation of fans” that it meant to the original fans, because it’s more dumbed down Hollywood garbage with pretty ‘splosions and lots of lens flare.
      PS-Warp drive and transporter technology are both theoretically possible, and humanoid aliens are a necessity of a TV budget. None of these are as stupid as Khan’s magic death curing blood.

      • RoyalEF says:

        Actually, I’ve always thought transporter technology is one of the stupidest anti-science pieces of crap I’ve ever heard. The idea that a beam of particles can be shot out of a gun and those particles will magically decide to re-arrange themselves back into an amazing exact replica tens of thousands of miles away without any device at the other end to host the re-integration is hogwash. It violates and ignores the most basic laws of physics. So making one that jumps between planets is just a bigger load of hogwash. It’s writers who don’t know anything about science who write this stuff. That’s why Star Trek was never Science Fiction, merely Futuristic Fantasy. Science Fiction became a completely abused and now meaningless label. That’s why when I go into a Bookstore to find Lord of the Rings, you more often than not, got to the “Science Fiction” section for Fantasy novels.

  6. JessSayin says:

    Speaking as Star Trek fan #1086 – I dug it.

  7. Newk Yuler says:

    Into Darkness dead last. Amazing they managed to get a big group of Trek fans together that all shared that opinion and just happened to be right at the same time.

    I watched Galaxy Quest a couple of nights ago on a whim because I remembered I enjoyed it years ago and wanted to see how it held up. Great story and cast in a light weight action comedy. A minor classic, IMO.

  8. Jeffrey Dean Root says:

    Sorry fans, but as much as I like the old movies they are very dated, no only in special effect but also dialog. They are fun to watch, but they were carried by a cast of 60’s TV actors and are more cute than good now. I still put them on from time to time but Benedict Cumberbach’s Khan was phenomenal.

  9. Mike Stirton says:

    Some people cannot handle change it would seem. They want everything to be the same old, same old. Bland and repeated disenfranchisement with the same rhetoric as in the past…When STOS was out….many loved it….STNG comes along, many of the STOS denounce it and lambast the characters, while a new generation of fans counter and diss the STOS and support STNG….then it was repeated with DS9 and again with Voyager and Enterprise…same shit, same difference of opinion with regard to the newer iteration/interpretation.

    And yes, the same can be argued with all the STOS and STNG movies as well…same tired old arguments about which was better or worse, and nobody, NOT ONE PERSON could provide a compelling argument that supported their particular negativity.

    I on the other hand welcomed EVERY change with an open mind. I wasn’t particularly crazy about DS9 in the first few episodes but it grew on me and I found I actually LOVED the series…well…mainly from the point of the Dominion story line and Worf joining the fun with all his old Klingon buddies from the NG series. Same could be said of Voyager and Enterprise….though the latter I think they wasted too much air time on the Xindi story line and lost many viewers as a result.

    And each and every movie I really liked for what they were…sci-fi entertainment. The special effects and the like is great to me, but what is more important is the story being told…is it interesting? And ya, Into Darkness and the previous reboot were an interesting take on a what-if change to the base story line to shake things up into a new line of story potential. STOS and the NG spinoffs movies were milked to death to the point that the stories were becoming predictable because the ST Canon itself had been long established to set the “history” of this future era and locked all the characters into the same series of just more of the same.

    The reboot IMO shook that candy jar up and opened up a whole myriad of new story possibilities for ALL the primary characters, and to me, that is a cool thing. And it resulted in me completely enjoying Abrams approach, as we cannot predict what is to follow…and I suspect that is the problem the detractors cannot get past…they do not like change it seems….sucks to be them I suppose.

    • Eugene Joubert says:

      if you’re going to do a remake with iconic characters like the Star Trek TOS crew, you have to get the characters right. Star Trek TOS is a character driven series. The depth of character and the relationship between Kirk, Spock and Bones were key to the series. Spock was a Vulcan in TOS, He was human in the reboot, they screwed up one of the most iconic characters in the entire Star Trek Universe. You don’t do that and get away with it.

      • Mike Stirton says:

        Spock was a halfling in the original series. And unlike TOS, he had also lost his mother, and for that matter, the entirety of his race. So it is not much of a stretch that he no longer had a solid emotional foundation that supported his Vulcan side. The cartoon series in the 70s, some stories of young boy Spock portrayed him as extremely emotional little brat at times.

        And really, give the cast some credit at least…unlike TOS and its movies, these actors are still trying to squeeze into the roles and interactions that the TOS actors had years to work on. Example in STNG….Worf…his character in the first few seasons was dismal…extremely painful to watch….as were many of the other characters for the first few seasons…I didn’t like clean shaven Riker either. And it wasn’t until the 4th season that I started to actually like and respect Worf. Same with Troy…I HATED her character until she was ordered to wear the uniform and took the bridge commander exams….but regardless of those issues, the actors took a very long time to become comfortable in their roles enough to interact on a more believable level. There was no chemistry in the first few seasons…everyone was stoic. And this can be said of any new series…it takes a while for the actors to develop their characters and get the rapport typical of real familiarity, instead of imposed by the story. And the interactions between Kirk, Spock and McKoy in the reboot, while not on the same level as the previous lot, is there…or perhaps you missed it while fuming about the changes?

        • Eugene Joubert says:

          now now, no one said I was fuming, I’m just not liking new Spock. Spock has always been a halfling, but alien none the less. I don’t believe Quinto pulled off the alien element in him well. Besides the fact that Leonard Nimoy is one of a kind, Spock’s alieness is what made him such a compelling character to watch. (I never really liked STNG, they went a bit too softcore and humanitarian for my liking and Riker was way more painful to watch than Worf). TOS had a bit more attitude, You had Spock who was the brains and Kirk who was the balls ready to kick ass and bosh chicks at any given chance. Because Kirk was captain, the Enterprise was always thinking with its balls so you had Bones there to patch it all up when it went too far.

          • Mike Stirton says:

            Never thought you were fuming… 😉

            I wasn’t a huge fan of NG either, in respect to TOS and its gritty in your face attitude. But I was and still am, a sci-fi fantasy junkie…unless the writing is terrible…then I dump it like a dirty sock within the first few episodes. And since there was very little alternate choices of shows to watch at the time, STNG and its variants were part of my routine. Out of all the NG series spinoffs, Janeway has my vote as the baddest bitch out there…She made Picard look like a pure wus and rivaled that of Kirk in her own way to get things done.

            Yep, Spock is one of a kind and memorable. I also loved Tuvok…it took a long time for him to grow into that role and for me to come to that conclusion. He maintained a similar kind of control as well. But then, I consider that neither of those two characters experienced the things the latest Spock had when things changed in the timeline. How are we to discern what happened to Spock since the event that took Kirk’s life. Think of it along the line of….a butterfly’s wings beat and cause a storm a thousand miles away….or something to that effect…canna rememba capin. The events that changed Kirk’s life most certainly changed the course of where Starfleet, the UFP went from as well. A rogue ship out there destroying their ships and disappearing without a trace no doubt changed course of thinking. Like our 9/11, except not on the same scale of death. Think of the distrust that might of sparked with neighboring factions. Political discourse and more, rippling. There is a remote chance it could change Spock as a person.

            Am I crazy about Quinto? Meh…I’m ok with giving him a chance to grow into it and get it. He’s got at least one more chance at the shot and then it is who knows after that. I’m not really sure who else would be a better fit in the role. Bone structure counts. What’s her name that played a Vulcan in Wrath of Khan was truly horrid. In spite of her hotness in physical appearance. That was truly a yikes moment…then came T’Pol….*drool*

      • Térence Vigan says:

        You got it wrong. J.J.Abrams Star Trek is not a remake. It is a reboot. This is not the same thing.

        • Eugene Joubert says:

          hmmm, when I reboot my PC it has the same operating system, same settings, same screen saver, same documents, same software. In fact, there is no difference to my PC every time a reboot it. When I hard reboot it it goes a bit quirky though, So I guess this was a hard reboot then right? 😛

          • Térence Vigan says:

            I had the same discussion before on another Star Trek article on GFR. Some people tend to mix remake and reboot:

            A remake is a new version of an old movie. You have to keep some elements:
            Ex: Old boy recently remade by Spike Lee made to be adapted to American culture.

            A reboot is a new vision of an old movie. You can do as you wish, even changing characters personalities:
            Ex: Robocop 2014.

            So Abrams can change characters personalities, mix events and even themes as he wishes.

          • Eugene Joubert says:

            Ok, thanks for clearing that up. So I guess I don’t quite agree with the Abrams perception of some of the new characters then. But the rest what he’s rebooted is friggin AWESOME!

          • Mike Stirton says:

            I can see similar conversations going on in the Planet of the Apes boards…lol

    • kcgeek says:

      Here’s the flaw in your argument: Both of Abrams offerings were titled Star Trek. Those titles carry certain expectations and an incredible amount of established history. If you want to claim that there was some artistic or entertainment value in a “what-if change to the base story line” of Trek, so be it. It’s fruitless to argue about a subjective opinion.
      But if this is the case, doesn’t it seem more honest (and somewhat more ‘proper’) to indicate this to a potential audience somehow, perhaps in the choice of how the film is titled and/or marketed? Because no matter how I look at it, I can’t help but think that the studios banked on the built-in popularity and devotion to the established franchise that is associated with the “Star Trek” title, knowing that if they used the title without any additional qualifier, they had a guaranteed revenue stream regardless of the film’s content. If the films were actually good enough to succeed on their own merits, there is no reason to employ what is essentially a classic staple of deceptive advertising: the bait and switch.

      You mentioned the resistance faced by every new iteration of the franchise, and you are quite right about it’s unfortunate predictability. But the difference here is that the titles of each iteration immediately established that this was a new extension of the ST universe. Star Trek: The Next Generation left little doubt that this was a NEW addition to the ST franchise, an extension of the original but not a retelling of the original. Or, to use a different example – when MArvel COMICS (not films – they are quite guilty of the same shit as the new ST films) gave us an alternative timeline/storyline of an established event or character – the title of the freaking comic started with “What If?”

      So your accusation of people just not being able to handle change isn’t really valid in the case of the reboots, because the studio very carefully kept the major deviations – deviations so fundamental that if known may have had a dramatic impact on the decision making of it’s potential audience – hidden from audiences prior to the release of the films. That’s not a problem with change. That’s anger at being f**king ripped off.

      • Mike Stirton says:

        Thing is, Abrams is not doing anything really all that remarkable with how the story line unfolded the way he envisioned.

        Roddenberry allowed the concept of alternate universe and alternate timeline stories throughout much of the series. Many books written but never made to video cover much of the same thing, the what if’s. Sci fi is always about that kind of thing. And Gene did dabble in it, so its not like this is a new thing.

        Is it banking off the title? Perhaps. But then, many movie fans these days never pay much attention to the title…if they see lots of fireworks or chase scenes or other crap, I suppose that is their extent of entertainment value, and this movie does provide that in spades. So yep, capitalized on that market segment.

        But I also think they capitalized on throwing out these what if stories and there is much appeal to it as evidenced in the box office takes . And next round of movies? Who knows if they will reboot and mix in the ewoks as the new engineer work force…no wait…uhh…I digress.

        Regardless of how badly you may view it, in relative terms to how well it rated and did in comparison to previous iterations under the ST name, http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_into_darkness/ would seem to show many differ on opinion. Another page I found spoke of it and compared each movie to the next and what it made, and its ratings including those of the audience.

        Either way, you’ll have to suck it up for at least one more. AND THEN you can look forward to the Disney’d Star Wars missing third book. I am patiently waiting in mortal fear of THAT outcome. Only the writing will save what I fear to be overdone CGI.

        • kcgeek says:

          Well, no – I won’t necessarily have to “suck it up once more”, because its highly unlikely that I will choose to watch the next offering. For one thing – I’m naturally skeptical by nature, and tend to be increasingly dubious the more “popular” or “hyped” something is. For another – once a movie maker significantly violates my trust, it’s extremely difficult to regain it. (Hence my strong aversion to anything M Night Shotmyloadearly is even remotely attached to)

          I think your points attempting to marginalize the name recognition factor are somewhat disingenuous, though. It’s impossible to dismiss the built in appeal of an established franchise so casually, or assert it as somehow a minor factor in it’s overall “success”. Do you think a movie billed as “a crew on a spacecraft has to travel back in time to find a whale to bring back to the future and stop the world from being blown up” would have captured even a third of the box office results if it was “Galaxy Coalition, The Journey Home”, featuring Captain Twerk and the crew of the IASA Exploranator? Preposterous!

          As for attempts to excuse or justify the general lack of originality and creative malaise that has currently settled over the film and tv industry – as long as we continue to compromise our standards and embrace the “best of the worst”, the studios will gladly continue to shovel as much shit down our collective throats as it can all in the name of potential profit until it becomes a terminal disease. If you don’t believe that, just look at the current state of politics in the US. Choosing the “lesser of two evils” has left the political landscape devoid of quality and reason.

  10. Davy says:

    This isn’t surprising. Star Trek Into Darkness is the most uncreative Trek film ever made. The makers just took what had been done before and shuffled it around. The result was lame and cringeworthy. The Wrath of Khan… now there’s a real Trek film!

  11. Mark Rude says:

    The results are only stunning if you’re not a Trekkie. It all makes perfect sense to me, only I’d have placed Galaxy Quest above STIII: Search for Spock.

  12. Nathan Paul Kennedy says:

    I didn’t mind the first one, but ST:ID was just a badly ripped off copy of ST:WOK, with virtually no character development, soul or ideas of its own. ST:TOS had the advantage of three on television to show us these characters, how they’d react or not to situations, what they believed in and what they thought but the new movies don’t have that luxury.

    Quite frankly, this re-boot is living off a reputation created by a different show, it can’t last. Star Trek is at its very best on TV, with time to develop storylines over a full season,not just try to cram in as many special effects in 2 hours as possible.

  13. Shaden17 says:

    Can you guys do Cloud Atlas? Loved the movie but hated many of the obvious bad make up moves.

  14. Jesse says:

    The inclusion of Galaxy Quest was just a chance by the people who put on the poll to by snide. A lot of people cannot stand the thought that a villain or character of any kind could be done differently. Well, it was, and it was done amazingly. In another year or two, those same people would go apesh*t if Benedict Cumberbatch was to take the stage. Sadly, these do not represent the majority of Trek Fans. They are the ones who will sit there and make twenty accounts on Reddit to downvote you out of pure spite.

  15. Shayde says:

    Oh come on… There’s no film worse than Insurrection. Ed Wood would have made better.

  16. Jon Davis says:

    Now now, Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness have one thing going for it. To keep the franchise going until someone goes, “Oh Dear God NO!” and begins to rebalance the character driven show with the action of the movies in a good way to make it more enjoyable for everyone.

    (Otherwise it has some fun to watch qualities, but it could’ve been done with a totally different universe of the producer’s creation if the studios had the guts to try something new instead of sticking to what’s been done a thousand times).

  17. moreyaltman says:

    It’s interesting how often people who liked the film miss the point of the criticism. No one is suggesting the Into Darkness wasn’t fun. It was, indeed, a fast-moving, beautiful looking roller-coaster ride. But it was terrible Star Trek, and barely science-fiction. Science fiction ponders the plausible; fantasy celebrates the impossible. This was a fantasy film boldly (indeed, deceptively) calling itself Star Trek when it had no right to do so.

    As for the tiresome line, ‘Trekkies didn’t want a reboot’ I call bull-shit. Anyone who has followed the Trek boards knows fans have been clamouring for a reboot for years, and most people were happy with the last film. It wasn’t perfect, but it seemed to be coming from a good place. Into Darkness, on the other hand, was badly-plotted, illogical and derivative. It was a puerile Summer blockbuster calling itself Star Trek for little reason other than characters with the same names as characters in the original series. Other than that, they bore no resemblance.

    Look, I’ve been watching Trek for 40 years. The original series was admittedly hit and miss. But when it was good, damn, was it good. TOS was the best thing on at a time when SF meant Lost in Space and Land of the Giants (which I actually loved.) It was as brave and thoughtful as mid-60’s television could get.

    What I (and I assume other fans) really wanted was a Star Trek film as brave and deep as possible in the year 2013, not 1966. Yes, there was the trendy anti-militaristic theme. But we also got a movie that was mostly dismissive of women, used serious issues as plot devices and wasted screen-time on irrelevant dialogue (Spock/Uhura) instead of better servicing other characters. Karl Urban, who is great as McCoy, was completely wasted.

    Yes, there’s some good stuff in the film, but overall it could have been better without sacrificing the Star Trek ethos or the action. One thing doesn’t affect the other. Everyone seems willing to acknowledge the faults of the film (underwater starship, anyone), but dismissing them altogether because the movie was “fun” is like saying I shouldn’t worry that my car won’t start because it has a great stereo and thickly-cushioned soft Corinthian leather seats. Yes, that was deliberate.

    I think, when we get right down to it, the difference of opinion – and this movie is shaping up to be the most divisive in Trek – is pretty simple: one group sees a well-made action film with post-modern sensibilities proudly wearing the Star Trek banner, whose faults are more than outweighed by its merits; versus, those who see the Star Trek brand exploited for the sake of a generic Summer blockbuster, thrown together from previous films (ST II & VI) and other recent action films, with a fashionable post-modernist anti-militarism (read: anti-American foreign policy) theme popular with the international market. I guess I’m in the second group.

  18. Shayde says:

    Oh and there’s no way First Contact was #2. There were plot holes in it the size of the gamma quadrant and Data acted like a douche.

  19. Troy Carrington says:

    please, get over it. there are far worse Star trek movies…Generations, Insurrection, Motion Picture all come to mind as does Final Frontier (it’s high point “Jim! You don’t ask the Almighty for his ID!”) Please, just get over it…

  20. donno says:

    I dont think the movie is bad

  21. Dave Melges says:

    Galaxy Quest CLEARLY understood Trek, and the Trek phenomenon at LEAST as well as Abrams does.

    The problem is not the the J. J. movies are bad, it’s that he does NOT UNDERSTAND CLASSIC TREK. Pretty much at all.

  22. Amy Paul says:

    My problem with Into Darkness is rather simple. It’s a remake of Wrath of Khan. With hundreds of Star Trek novels out there, and thousands of good SF writers, all they could come up with was a remake? Really? I lost all respect for the new franchise and enjoyment of the movie when they chose to not bother coming up with anything resembling an original plot.