Half in the Bag: Star Trek Into Darkness

May 24, 20131,640 Comments

Wanna hear Mike, Jay, and Rich Evans talk about Star Trek Into Darkness for 45 minutes? WARNING: 90% of this episode is spoilers. So if you haven’t seen the movie yet and want to avoid spoilers, maybe skip this one. And if you haven’t seen the movie yet and don’t care about spoilers, there’s a lot of stuff mentioned in this episode that won’t make a lot of sense to you until you’ve seen the movie.

Other Formats: YouTube


flattr this!

Filed in: General UpdatesHalf in the Bag

  • bobdole’spube

    whoa, new half in the bag? Great way to start the weekend – Fuck YEAH!

    • http://www.facebook.com/deejaytaufiq Mohamad Taufiq Morshidi

      I’ve finally watched STD just to fucking watch this review.

      You happy now you stupid hack frauds?

  • Constantine1985

    Nice! Haven’t seen the movie. Don’t care. You say spoilers, I say; bring’em on!, it worth it.

  • I don’t like these forced ads!

    I don’t like these forced ads!

    • I don’t like supporting RLM

      I don’t like supporting RLM so they can make more content!

    • Evis

      My heart bleeds for you. How dare these guys have the utter GALL to demand 30 seconds of your time in order to get paid for providing you with entertainment. It’s utterly disgusting.

      • Noah

        You done sucking their cock yet?

        • Thomas Hayes

          You done being an entitled git yet?

          • Guest

            You all done?

          • shhh

            I am all for piracy and unrestricted flow of information on the internet. But you are fucking insane.

          • Noah

            That’s beautiful. It’s almost as if you took what I said and turned it around on me. Brilliant, good sir. I’m sure you’re a big hit at the I-Parrot-Other-People-Because-I’m-Trying-Oh-So-Hard-To-Be-Witty Symposium and Extravaganza. I tried getting tickets, if you can’t tell.

          • FACLC

            If an entitled git sucks a cock do we get a matter/antimatter energy release?

        • Manioc

          Only one? Is it a timeshare cock or something?

          • Noah

            Sorry, I forgot that in colloquial conversation, you must have the same grammatical accuracy as a 5th year graduate student finishing up the final draft of their doctorate dissertation. Because, after all, the internet has standards, goddammit.

          • Corporal Corpuscle

            fag

      • Louie B

        It isn’t that those of us who use Adblock don’t want to support RLM but rather we find Blip.tv, and most other forms of internet advertising, as
        not only invasive but sometimes harmful to our computers as well. Tell
        me, would you rather have us risk our own equipment which costs
        hundreds, maybe thousands, of dollars for the sake of keeping video
        makers afloat? Heck no.

        • WTF

          Holy fuck, adds aren’t going to break your computer and you can always still use adblock and wait 90 seconds. You have to be trolling otherwise you are literally insane.

    • SomeoneElseTookDude

      They’re Blip ads, not RLM

    • Percy Gryce

      I don’t add these forced likes!

  • Pete Sahud

    Very nice :-))) But I have to say, that I was really looking forward to a Plinkett review of that…

  • Jeff Berg

    I’m excited!! I’ve been waiting for this review for 4 days!!!

  • someguywhoboughttheapp

    Why is this not showing up on the app already?

  • f1061843

    …aaaand here we go again..another round of douchebags on both sides of the argument about ads and adblocker ,support and entitlement…….

    Why must all of the internet turn into youtube comment section ?

    • DavidHilbert

      I like that you think you’re not on a side, and thus not a douchebag. Nope, you’re on a side.

      • fiddlecub

        I love your logic. You assume that the poster is saying “all people on a side” = “douchebags,” and that “commenter thinks he is not on a side.” He did not state that he is not on a side, nor did he state that everyone with a position on the subject is a douchebag. In essence, you are responding to things you made up in your head as opposed to what was actually expressed. In fact, that the whole of your statement does not reflect what f1061843 actually stated is rather impressive! I admire a great imagination.

  • Kviii

    HACK KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANS!!!!!!!!!!

  • Day_is_Over

    Guess what folks, entertainment ISN’T free despite what the internet tells you. How do I give these guys enough money to pump these out faster and more often?

  • froople

    I-it’s ok, RLM-san… I didn’t want to go to bed ANYWAY!

  • mondomolesto

    Cant watch the video because i’m a sensible person who uses an adblocker, sorry. Wont get rid of it just to view your videos. Balls in your court busto.

    • mondo

      I have adblock and can watch the video just fine. The ball is in their court because you don’t know how your software works?

    • http://twitter.com/orbsonb Ben Robson

      cool fedora, rico suave

    • Naes

      Visiting the site and commenting gives them revenue regardless of if you watched it. Balls in your mouth, buddy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/bradsmo Brad Smoley

    I DON’T SEE THE DVD PLAYER ANYWHERE OUT HERE

  • http://profiles.google.com/soderberg.lars Lars Söderberg

    I’ll watch this episode when I’ve seen the movie, probably sometime early next week. The problem with movies you want to see, but haven’t had time to see yet, are things like this and staying away from imdb/watching trailers etc. It’s times like these that tests a person to his core. Being an old-school trekkie I hope I don’t get too disappointed tho.

  • splimis

    I may take heat for this, but between this and The Best of the Worst, I don’t really care if theres is a next Plinkett review. If the right movie came along sure, but I like these even more at this point.

    • Brack to the Future

      Why would you take heat for this? Plinkett is awesome and stands the test of time, but I’ll never be interested in watching him jump a motorcycle over stuff. I am glad he’s used sparingly.

  • Aviak

    Rich Evans is drunk!

  • adrian mcdonald

    Why did Khan go to Cronos? If the Starfleet Admiral wanted a war with the Klingons, was Khan trying help make that happen? If it was his plan to be captured, why not go someplace else?

    And since when can a lone Starfleet Admiral unilaterally sign off of a clandestine military operation in Klingon space? Surely such a mission would be super secret, yet everybody keeps talking about it in the open. What the fuck?

    Why did Kahn ram his super powerful warship into San Francisco? Why not just fire some torpedoes from orbit?

    I could keep going…..but I did enjoy the film.

    • Jeebus

      Khan didn’t know the Admiral wanted a war with the Klingons.

      • adrian mcdonald

        Really? So the warship was built to fight….who? And he went to Cronos, why?

        • Lindelsuck

          Is the black goo the reason dinosaures died out?

          Did the space croissant crush Charlize Theron because there something wrong with Weylands face?

          Does Lindelcock have black goo in his head ?

        • Dan Hibiki

          Sunny beaches?

      • PegasusFantasy

        yes he did
        assuming he didnt tho, that would be a MAJOR plot convenience anyway wouldnt it??

    • Manioc

      Presumably he went to Cronos because “that’s the one place [they] cannot go after him”, like they said in the movie. Except they obviously do go after him anyway, but whatever I guess he didn’t foresee that.

      Robocop only talks about the mission with Kirk, right? Who he figures will do whatever he asks, and who he intends to kill / sacrifice anyway.

      Khan’s super ship was totally busted up from 72 torpedoes exploding inside of it, remember?

      • adrian mcdonald

        I hear you, but since Khan was working for an Admiral that had him build a super powerful ship to fight outside powers (the Kingons in particular) and designed stealth torpedoes that could hit a target anywhere (even Kronos), I doubt Khan went there to be “safe”. If he wanted to be safe, he could have chosen to defect or go to a populated area. He didn’t, and chose an upopulated area.

        Robocop does talk with Kirk about the mission….out in the open at Starfleet HQ. Anyone walking by would easily hear what’s going on. Kirk and others also openly talk about the mission before getting to the Enterprise. Keeping things hush hush was simply not a concern.

        And yes, Khan’s ship was damaged….but more than the Enterprise? Repairs anyone? He did design the damn ship (and to be manned with minimal crew).

        • Manioc

          Khan probably couldn’t defect, since the Klingons are happy to shoot him on sight. But yeah, fleeing to the ruined world populated by Space Barbarians which are about to get nuked from orbit wasn’t a brilliant move. The film says he can’t be attacked there and then 10 minutes later shows this isn’t the case, so I can only assume that Khan underestimated how much time he had.

          I guess you’re right on the second point. Chalk it up to the movie requiring an economy of footage and not wanting to show Kirk, Robocop & friends talking things over in a private room :P

          I don’t think there was time for Khan to repair his ship- doesn’t like 90% of this movie take space over at most half-a-day? That’s actually one of the few things which really did bug me about both the 2009 movie and this one- the pacing is insanely fast in-universe, with a ton of events being compressed into a ludicrously short amount of time. Why can’t the Enterprise and Vengence stay mutually disabled for several hours instead of minutes? That would have allowed the movie to slow things down a little to make conversations and the action less rushed and perhaps fill in a few plot holes.

          • adrian mcdonald

            I agree on the timing. It seems like it only takes a few minutes to get anywhere. Earth to Vulcan, 5 minutes. Earth to Cronos? Maybe 20 minutes?

            As for Khan’s ship–yeah, probably not enough time to repair. I suppose if he had kept it out in space any longer, the federation fleet would have taken him out….and where the hell were they to begin with? You’d think Kirk could have sent a shuttle to hop over to starbase and scream for help, especially when the Drednaught was disabled.

          • FACLC

            Of course, the movie mentioned three or four times that the life sign had to be Khan because the Klingons never ever ever go to that part of their homeworld. And the missiles could safely be used to kill him because the Klingons won’t be there to even see them impact the ground. Then Kirk & Co run into a “random patrol” which links up with 4 other random patrols to force Kirk to land, all in this area where the Klingons never ever ever ever go.

  • Matt Stevenson

    I’m actually enjoyng the new 90 second delay, gives me time to make a coffee or grab a beer.

    • http://www.facebook.com/will.robinson.v Will Robinson

      Also, you can read some furious comments, it’s entertaining. A little.

    • im too old

      I’ve a solution for that. My AdBlock Plus is disabled for RLM, but it’s easier for me, as I come from a country for which Blip almost never serves advertisements, buahahaha.

    • Panties in a twist

      The only reason to wait 90 seconds is if you’re a fucking moron. The ad is 15 seconds long.

      • Matt Stevenson

        The internet is huge. And tabbed browsing has exisited since Netscape 7. I’l buy merch instead of being beaten over the head by shit I don’t want.

  • Mark Bisone

    Another splendid episode, gentlemen. Bravo.

    I look forward to all the genteel and sophisticated debates on art, religion, politics and commerce that have become the hallmark of the RLM comments section.

    Let the salon commence!

    • Brack to the Future

      Cram it with walnuts, ugly.

    • Percy Gryce

      You rang?

  • funcomment

    Star Trek: Oh no! Damon Lindofuck did it again!

  • 90 seconds man

    Longest 90 seconds delay!!11 Awaited for so long!

  • Brack to the Future

    New favorite porn name: Benedict Plundersnatch

    • Manioc

      Benedick?

    • Mark Bisone

      Bendydick Thundercrotch

      • downloadingacarrightnow

        Just post that picture of the hairy guys already.

    • Percy Gryce

      Bentdick Wonderthatch

    • Mark Bisone

      Suckary Cunt-ho

      • FACLC

        Aren’t all of these awfully similar to the proposed names Eddie Izzard said were rejected before stumbling across “Engelbert Humperdinck”?

    • Percy Gryce

      Bruce Hardwood
      Peter Fill ‘er

  • Justin

    Omg Mike’s epic laugh! Totally awesome!

  • I AM ENTITLED

    You know what’s worse than using adblock and having to sit through 90 seconds before the video plays?

    Every single problem in the world.

  • MusMe

    Now THAT should’ve been a quote on the poster:
    “It’s a thing that exists” – Mike Stoklasa

  • ThePurpleWiggle

    The next Borg scheme will be a rehash of Hellstar Remina.

  • http://twitter.com/bastistroescu Sebastian Stroescu

    Okay, I’m not going to lie, I am a bit disappointed by your double standard attitude to the movie. It made as little sense plot-wise as Avengers, which was a film you raved about as being not-so-complicated but loads of fun. In this case, the interaction between the characters was immensely enjoyable and the comic relief was not as pretentious as in the aforementioned movie.
    Not a fan of Marvel films, but I think Into Darkness should have gotten the same attitude and expectations.

    Just my two eurocents. I still respect you, you hypocritical hacks.

    • Brack to the Future

      You sound like you only have 15 Pfennigs on your phone card. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBynhWDXgds Happy Gerbitz Day!

    • http://www.plasticpals.com/ Robotbling

      Mike is a big fan of Star Trek though (if you’ve seen the Plinkett reviews of the ST:TNG movies you’ll know he knows his stuff), so obviously he’s going to be harder on this than Iron Man.

      • http://twitter.com/bastistroescu Sebastian Stroescu

        Of course, I am perfectly aware. But strangely, after watching this, it seemed that Rich and Jay were way more upset.

      • http://twitter.com/Duhperner W.A. Smith

        I don’t think being a fan of something should prevent you from being able to see when something is well constructed, nor should it a.) automatically make things bad when it happens to involve a character from the past played by a different person of B.) cause nitpicks to turn into valid crucial criticisms.

    • Taylor

      I love these guys but was so annoyed with the avengers and how everyone loved it. I was so ready for them to rip it a new one and they didn’t. To watch them tear this one up so badly kind of sucks. This movie was flawed big time but it was enjoyable. Oh well they are still my favorite reviewers.

      • dollar store cashier wife

        Avengers has everything that gets other blockbusters swim in hatred:two dimensional characters,a plot only good enough for a sunday morning cartoon and ofc all surface-zero substance.but since it’s based of a gift from baby jesus himself-a comic book and done by joss whedon aka everything is witty therefore genius[if your're a brain dead nerd perhaps]so it dodged the bullet and became the most mediocre loved film of recent years.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=599459594 Michael Little

          Avengers was cinema AIDS.

    • Reggie_Rock

      What didn’t make sense about Avenger’s plot? Bad guy summons army of killer robots, quirky heroes defeat killer robots. It’s plot was a bare bones simplistic excuse for witty dialogue and dumb actions scenes. There wasn’t enough there to even create holes, and that’s for the best.

    • Joe Bloggs

      Mike and Rich Evans are big ST fans so obviously they’re going to judge it as part of the franchise and not just an action movie. They discuss why the film was disappointing as a ST fan and what the true appeal of ST is.
      Jay looks at it from someone with a little ST knowledge but not much. He mostly judges the film as a stand alone film, similar to what they did for The Avengers. They didn’t love everything about The Avengers but they recommended it as popcorn action flick.

      You have to keep in mind that unless it’s a film in a fandom that one of them has a particular interest in, they’re basically only going to discuss whether the film’s plot made sense or whether the film was boring or anything that has been in the news about the film. Not every review will be along the lines of Plinkett picking it apart. If they recommend a film it’s more like telling you that it’s worth going if you had a previous interest, not to use their review to tell you that you should see a film that you had no previous interest in seeing.

    • Craggy Knob

      Downvoted for inappropiate use of the word “pretentious”.

  • truth

    9/11 was an inside job

  • http://www.facebook.com/Dark.Reaper.and.Galactimus.Zero Marvin Choi
  • http://www.facebook.com/throg.warhammer Throg Warhammer

    Thanks for saving me from this movie. It didn’t plan on watching it, but now I know not to.

  • Robert Pigott

    You know what, despite everything you guys said, despite realizing that this movie is pretty dumb all things considered and has some plot holes, I still really enjoyed Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan, I still enjoyed the acting and the attention to detail they changed from the first movie, I still enjoyed the action sequences and I thought the story was fine for the most part. Is it an amazing movie? No. But I still thought it was very entertaining. And better than Iron Man 3.

    • Nanbo

      THIS! I like Half in the bag and Red Letter in general. BUt they have to get over that they will never see a star captain fighting a man in a cheesy lizard suite. It will be like JJ Abrams from this point on.
      ALSO Howard Stern interviewed JJ and said: “Have you ever been to a Trek convention?”
      JJ said: “No”
      Howard: “Good. Don’t listen to those crazies. You will never get anywhere if you take their advice. You have to take the story and do your own thing”.
      He is right, it would be like today’s politics. Everyone wants a piece so it just stalls no where.

      • robin

        You forgot to ad “hoo hoo “

      • Manioc

        The cheesy lizard suite might go for a good rate, but it sure skinks.

      • fiddlecub

        But he didn’t do that–he quite clearly didn’t do his own thing, but rather took bits of the Trek legacy and pieced them together. The critique isn’t about needing a star captain to fight a lizard guy, but about craving human drama leading to action that we are invested in. I am all for Abrams doing his own thing, but he’s not doing that. Instead, he hand-picked all the obvious Trek references and had a story stitched around them. That’s not creative license, or taking a series in a bold new direction; that’s relying on the past to do the storytelling work you are unwilling to do (or incapable of doing).

    • Percy Gryce

      I believed it’s spelled “Kahn.”

  • Day_is_Over

    I too agree with them and yet…I enjoyed the film as an alternate universe version of Wrath of Khan.

  • Gary V

    Nice to see I’m not the only one to call him Admiral Robocop.

    For the next Star Trek movie they’ll probably go back in time to retrieve some wales, because that’s what was already done and people remember that one.

    • The Narrator

      He may be Robocop, but he’ll always be Admiral William S. Burroughs to me.

    • Percy Gryce

      To me, he’ll always be John Frederick Paxton from the Star Trek Enterprise episode “Terra Prime.”

      • Gary V

        Admiral Buckaroo Banzai doesn’t flow off the tongue as well.

  • WIlliam Sadler

    In the 90 seconds bit where it won’t let me watch the show, I just do one armed push-ups and naked yoga.

  • SomeoneElseTookDude

    Fuck Movies

    • SomeoneElseTookDude

      Sorry, I meant to say Fuck “Moopes”

  • im too old

    Well, for me the movie was pretty dumb… I hadn’t had high expectations, but still was suprised how simplified and full of plot holes it was. Maybe I I’m too much into Star Trek, and that’s the reason I’m expecting more than an average movie goer. Who cares really. As a DS9 fan I was really happy that they’ve brought Section 31 to the movies, but the execution was – meh.

    I really don’t see the point of writing more on the subject, enough to say that in my recognition stopping volcano from exploding is a violation of Prime Directive… Meh.

    • FACLC

      Sorry bud, but Section 31 was featured in 4 episodes of Enterprise (including the one starring Peter Weller), so this is just another bit of “canon from that horrible prequel series” that survived.

  • White Norris

    White Khan wants you to shut up. He is whiter than all of you.
    JJ Abrams has your money; White Khan’s mission is accomplished.
    White Khan and White Mandarin will now be walking off into the $un$et.

  • Frodo.jpg

    Why does Rich have just one shirt sleeve rolled up?

    • Bear TheDad

      It’s a prison thing.

  • Graceless

    Star Trek: Ohana means family, family means nobody gets left behind. Or forgotten.

  • James MacLovin Treanor

    Can we see the 2 hour extended edition of this….please?!?!

  • Duck4Cover

    Zero Trek Thirty.

    • the real the truthest

      Fuck you for stealing my fake disqus identity.

      And no.Zero dark thirty is not as dumb as Star Trek into dumbassness.

      • Duck4Cover

        Terrorist Bombing in London
        Extrajudicial Drone attacks on another planet’s sovereign territory
        Torture (Though without impact)
        Stealth Helicopters vs Secret Military Starship
        SUBTLE!!! intimations that Kirk may have PTSD
        Smaller terrorist attack to enable second larger terrorist attack
        Graphic footage of a Starship aiming for a city skyline
        Other stuff probably

        • FACLC

          911WASANINSIDEJOB!

  • Rivertold

    Paging doctor Plinkett!

  • PegasusFantasy

    we want the Mr Plinkett review!!!! ooooo

  • DoctorKillpatient

    If you think about it, Khan having the regenerative DNA actually explains how he managed to survive Ceti Alpha V among his 20 followers and why the other genetically engineered humans would select him as their leader.

    I think they have actually made the effort not to take a huge dump on The Wrath of Khan with this movie, even though it was all action and very little Star Trek.

    • Steve

      Ah, so they didn’t… Even though they did. To quote Star trek TMP “Into Darkness is barren, cold… “

  • ciagw

    Now an outtakes reel, pliz!

  • LoveToBeATestMarketSubject

    Forced commercials in every video online now. They should do that in movies at the theater too. And make them 4 times as loud as the video/movie. I love it.

  • Max Wylde

    You ought to have me come down there and I can pick apart TNG for you. In detail. This is where Star Trek began its decline.

    • Reggie_Rock

      Began its decline? Star Trek has always been about campy oversimplified plots and bad writing that took itself way too seriously. That’s never changed and that’s what the fans want.

      • Max Wylde

        But, Star Trek had a lot of great plots, and it wasn’t necessarily based on a politically correct outlook for the future. If TNG didn’t follow on the success of Star Trek, both the TV shows and then the films, it would never have made it past the pilot.

        • Steve

          TNG was pretty damned retched in it’s first two seasons (With a handful of good episodes between the two.). It wasn’t until Season 3 – 6 that TNG really found itself… But when it did it commanded 20 million viewers. It was hardly the decline of Trek. That came later after Roddenberry died. They drifted away from the spirit of Trek and got stuck in formulaic plots. Trek needs to find it’s way back to TV in new hands that will bother to know what made the original so damn good when it was at it’s best.

  • Tomas P.

    I can’t watch the video because of the poor connection, but reading the comments makes me disappointed. Are they really being this harsh on a fun summer blockbuster? I don’t know how convincing their arguments are, but I know that I enjoyed the movie and nothing will change that. I thought the cast, the special effects, the writting, the action worked together perfectly and created a fantastic and very enjoyable action flick.
    Alright, I understand that the movie is not perfect and the last 20 minutes are somewhat poor, but there’s nothing worth hating there (rolling eyes is a usual reaction to what Spock says and does at the end).
    I’m sad now. I was really looking forward to this review to relive the fun moments. It’s surprising that the people who enjoyed the first movie don’t enjoy the sequel which, at least in my opinion, is just as good or even better. But wait, it has a character called Khan, I take it back, it’s the worst thing ever.

  • snqrls

    I liked the movie. Scenes made sense and were well connected if you paid attention. A lot was extraneous, but there was a definite overarching story, and the number of plotholes was limited despite appearances.

  • Glenn Hatt

    More like we’re going to blow the roof off of Mr. Plinkett’s party.

  • Anthony Ruiz

    Totally agree with your points gentlemen. The thing that got me was the fact that the quasi-plot the writers had concocted to conceal Khan in the previews was more interesting than the “plot” with Khan. Imagine what would’ve happened if they stayed with the plot they promised in the marketing campaign: a member of Starfleet goes against the Federation for reasons he considers to be immoral.

    After seeing this movie, I made my own plot and like it a whole lot better. Why not balance the audience pandering with a good story? In my story Harrison IS Harrison and is captured by force by Kirk and company. While in the brig, Harrison gives Kirk coordinates to a Section 31 black site where top secret technology is developed and is a secret prison for suspected Klingon operatives and sympathizers (because it’s been established that Klingons can be altered to look like humans).

    Kirk and crew debate what they should do. Spock actually DEFENDS Section 31 saying it’s the only way to keep the Klingons at bay and the “needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” McCoy and Kirk push the ideals of the Federation (especially McCoy) saying it stands on freedom and self determination. They resolve to go back to Earth, but before they can go to warp the super missiles (which have Klingon warheads in them and NOT people) explode and cripple the ship. Then the USS (basically a Star Destroyer) Vengeance, a top secret Section 31 cruiser intercepts them and begins to open fire on them with Klingon weapons.

    The fact that no one in “Starfleet proper” knows about the Vengeance means that if the Enterprise is destroyed, it will appear that the Enterprise was destroyed on the Federation side of the Neutral Zone by an unknown ship armed with Klingon weapons. This would cause a full scale Klingon War. Harrison helps Kirk and red shirts get on the Vengeance. They sabotage the ship’s reactor. The Vengeance is crippled but activates a self-destruct sequence that is so powerful it will wipe out the entire sector so there will be no debris of the Vengeance and the Enterprise would be destroyed in the process. Dr. Carol Marcus (who in the original plot did NOTHING other than take off her clothes and offend people) develops a way for the ship to ride the tidal forces of the Vengeance’s explosion and Spock risks his life to save Kirk who can’t beam out because the leaking Vengeance reactor scatters Scotty’s beam. They have banter about Spock being human, they come back to Earth, Kirk gives a speech at Pike’s funeral about responsibility and who the real enemies are, the ship flies off into the sunset.

    THEN after the credits, Admiral Marcus who for the whole film is presumably a good guy orders Section 31 to look for a ship mentioned in the tattered records of the Third World War/Eugenics War. Once they find the ship, he orders them to only harvest the DNA of the “specimens” they found to serve as templates for a new race of operatives. Admiral Marcus does this because he says, “these people were the most dangerous individuals humanity ever experienced. In their time they nearly extinguished all life on Earth. We cannot allow them to live in our time, but we can use their raw material for a better purpose.” He orders them to start with the leader as he was known as the strongest and most superior of them.

    There you have it: a better plot than Into Darkness building up to a third film which has practically written itself: full scale war with the Klingons with Khan as the perpetrator. Khan threatens to destroy half the quadrant so that he may emerge as “the master of two empires.” A third film with Khan and Klingons as the antagonists is Star Trek Nirvana. It angers me that the dumbass writers didn’t see that.

    • too long

      TL,DR but you clearly put much more effort into writing your comment than the writers of this dumb movie did into their script.

      • Steve

        You really should read it. It’s quite good.

  • Graceless

    The part where Mike’s Doomsday Machine namedrop is greeted with blank stares is my new favorite RLM moment ever.

  • playdude92 .

    Benedict britishname did a great acting job. So did Quinto and Pegg.
    Too bad they wrote a script-facade instead of a script for them.

  • garnufiax

    To me these new star trek movies are just fine. I mean, they’re entertaining but I don’t think any of them will be something the star trek fans will remember fondly in years to come.
    It’s an action-adventure sci-fi movie by the numbers. I liked this movie but there’s nothing there that makes me say: wow, this is Star Trek at its best, Abrahams gets it!!

    • Steve

      I don’t think they’ll be something anybody really remembers fondly in a matter of a decade. Unlike TWOK or TOS, which will continue to endure for one simple reason. They told good stories that are, in certain respects, timeless. Contrary to popular opinion, good stories stand the test of time. “The Tempest” lead to Forbidden Planet, and Forbidden Planet led to Star Trek.

  • Mike

    Whoa Whoa Whoa…. I think you guys should watch the TOS episode ‘Space Seed’. You mis-interpretted the Khan back plot in this movie. Khan knew Marcus was going to double cross him, but held Khans crew hostage to get Khan to work on the advance torpedoes. During which Khan began trying to smuggle his crew out of the facility in said torpedoes. This is where Khan gets caught hiding his crew and then flees. He didn’t know his crew was still alive and believed Marcus had them all executed. That’s why he returned to blow up the Section 31 and try to kill Marcus at the Admirals meeting. This was stated in the movie. Also, Starfleet was searching for “New Vulcan” they came across Khan’s ship. Admiral Marcus woke only Khan up and held the rest of the crew hostage. This is an allusion to Space Seed in which Kirk comes across the Botany Bay and Khan is the only awoken by the Enterprise crew.

    As far as I am concerned, it appears that Kirk and Scotty jumped the gun and crossed Khan first by shooting him on the bridge. I am not so certain Khan was going to cross Kirk. It was a nice touch that Khan was working with Kirk and Scotty. I thought this could have been a cool twist to the character and could have led to a multiple movie arc with him turning on Kirk in a more believable way. But from a interview I ran across online, it sounded as if Abrams knew he was getting offered Star Wars and wasn’t sure about doing multiple Trek movies. So that’s why all of the Wrath Of Khan stuff was written into the last 1/4 of the movie. I don’t think they had originally intended to remake Wrath of Khan as was stated over and over again.

    • Grendelsan

      Space Seed happens much later in TOS than when when Marcus unfreezes him in this new film dreck. Why would it have any bearing whatsoever on how Khan reacts to Marcus or Kirk in the new film?

    • adrian mcdonald

      Khan was working with Kirk to accomplish his short-term goals. Once achieved, he might have let Kirk and crew live….but that’s a big might. I suspect he would have used the new ship to inflict some more damage on the Federation and then skip town with his crew.

  • Kevin Tipa

    I generally thoroughly enjoy your reviews, and I usually agree. I still enjoyed the review, and I still was made to consider things I hadn’t before, but I don’t think I agree with general conclusion. I liked the opening sequence that addressed the Prime Directive. They showed three perspectives on it… Kirk’s, Spock’s, and of course Star Fleet’s. Spock was willing to interfere without interacting directly with the primitive people. Kirk was willing to throw it all to hell to save the life of a crew member. And then Star Fleet punishes them both for breaking the Prime Directive in the first place… it was for stopping the volcano that they got in trouble. I was also pretty happy about the swapping of roles for the radiation treatment. It was an indication to me that while this alternate Star Trek has been changed because of time travel stuff, we’re still in for some of the familiar things that we really like. Before this gets too long, I did find myself agreeing with some of your points in the video, and I think the script/plot could have been much better. But I also enjoyed a lot of the movie, and think you might be being too hard on it.

    • Alex Lee

      The problem with the opening scene is that it’s really an aside story; it has no actual relation to the larger story other than to establish that Kirk is a hothead with a heart of gold. It also fails in setting up the tone of the movie because this is a story about double-crosses, but the opening is reminiscent of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Raiders is a fun,adventure movie, but it’s never been about being smart where defenders insist that this movie was being.

      The problem with the radiation scene is that the writers ultimately didn’t know or didn’t feel like creating moments of emotional output. Instead, they decide to plagiarize another man’s work because Meyer got it perfect the first time. Given that Lindeof’s team didn’t want to have to deal with canon, people just assumed that they wanted a free universe to work from. In reality, they didn’t really care in the first place.

  • Zach

    I didn’t have any problem with the plot like a lot of people seemed to and it seems pretty straightforward:

    -Admiral Marcus finds Khan and his people and unthaws Khan to be an agent for Starfleet, holding the remaining 72 crew members frozen as leverage.
    -Khan gets fed up with being used and launches his plan for revenge and uses the attack on London as a way to lure the heads of Starfleet into the same room and take them out all at once.
    -Marcus has the 72 Khan crew members loaded into “special long range torpedoes” that will kill Khan and the crew members in one shot and sends Kirk on the mission to Kronos.
    -Khan finds out about the torpedoes from the message from Sulu and from Kirk, surrenders himself to the Enterprise to figure out a way to get his crew members back, putting it together that his crew are in the torpedoes based on the number of them .
    -Marcus finds out that Kirk plans to bring Khan in alive and uses the new Dreadnaught to take them out and pass it off as a Klingon attack and use it as a pretense for war with the Klingons, which is his ultimate goal.
    -Khan agrees to work with Kirk to stop Marcus but is actually just trying to take the Dreadnaught for himself, get his crew back by threatening the crippled Enterprise and then resume his original goal of conquering anyone he considers inferior.
    -Spock gets advise from Spock Prime and uses a similar tactic against Khan, Kirk sacrifice himself to get the warp core back working for the Enterprise.
    -Spock captures Khan alive in San Fransisco after the Dreadnaught crashes and they use Khan’s blood to revive Kirk.

    I agree they rely on prior knowledge of Wrath of Khan a little too much to wrap up the final third but I think people are blowing the plot holes out of proportion.

  • Nanbo

    I really have no idea how they licked IRon man 3 ass but gave this a FULL half in the bag episode to critic it. I think because it get’s it’s full show = it was probably so great it confused these guys LOL!
    But yeah, there are points that are true. And we, the fans, understand it. In fact Kahn is casted as a test tube baby from India in the original series… yet we put up with the Wrath of Kahn and Into the Darkness. Also, name 1 movie that Star Trek could follow? Star Wars it cannot. Space Odyssey it cannot. This is it. And yes, I hope they stop making Star Trek films, and make a kick ass series instead. Also, JJ just agreed to do the Star Wars films under Disney.

    • Dan Hibiki

      Iron Man was at least entertaining and didn’t rely on stupid nostalgia to carry it.

      • http://twitter.com/Duhperner W.A. Smith

        Into Darkness was wildly entertaining and relied on nostalgia for ONE 10 minute sequence towards the end. That’s it.

        • Dan Hibiki

          every other minute was a stupid tefrence to something Trekie.

          Mud’s ship? Was there any need for it?
          Tribbles?
          Qo’Nos’ mood in pieces?

          utter bullshit all movie long.

          • Jordan

            So references to TOS = Nostalgic bullshit? lol

          • Manioc

            If there weren’t references Trekkies would have complained that it had no relationship to TOS.

        • Percy Gryce

          Nostalgia? Coming right up:

          Section 31
          Caitans
          Dreadnought-class ship
          Daystrom
          Redshirt jokes galore.

  • Jambo

    Good review, but you’ve been kinder to dumber movies. I think big guy was more down on it than usual cause he’s a Trekkie and little guy followed his lead. Iron Man 3 sucked more. But why argue about shit vs shit I guess.

    • Jambo

      Sorry, that’s a bit glib of me. Big guy is more precise and eloquent in presenting his thoughts, so when he disagrees with little guy, little guy gets shut down. In cases where big guy has the same negative thoughts as little guy, the little guy has free reign.

    • Thomas Hayes

      Iron Man 3 is not a cerebral film, but it’s cleverer than this one. There are a couple of plot contrivances in IM3 but the dialogue in that film is well written and feels natural. You don’t realise some of the plot holes or missing elements until after the film is over, and the character-based story arc has already won you over. STID has a lot of plot contrivances an the dialogue crammed in to fit the plot and I couldn’t help but notice this even while I was watching the film – it was spoiling it a bit for me even before we get to the twists and the ending. The character arcs in this are much flimsier, and like they said recycled from the first film so that doesn’t make you care about them to the same extent. So I can see why they were harder on it.

      I found STID more exciting than most of IM3 – the pacing of IM3 is actually fairly slow by modern standards as it’s so focused on Tony Stark’s character stuff the actual plot has to wait a bit for that. STID, like ST09, moves at a breakneck pace, and I think Abrams did a great job at shooting the action in an energetic style and keeping the film engaging in spite of script issues. He’ll be a good Star Wars director – if the screenwriter is on the ball.

      I agree with a lot of Mike, Jay and Rich’s criticisms of STID but I enjoyed it anyway. This film is proving to be fairly divisive wherever I see it reviewed – at least it hasn’t committed the ultimate film crime of being boring. Along with Iron Man 3 I’m enjoying the nerd franchise movies right now, bring on Man of Steel. Don’t let us down, Snyder/Goyer/Nolan….

  • Edyed

    I still expect a Plinkett review of this in a near future.

    • or pick a name

      It will be out when Into Darkness will be on DVD, not sooner, as a proper Plinkett review requires a lot of material form the movie in it. Here they’ve used trailers, as they always do with fresh movie.

  • Phil

    You totally misunderstood the plot that was all exposed by Cumberbatch.

    Section 31 finds Bottany Bay, wakes Khan and threaten to kill his crew if he doesn’t help them design weapons and shit.

    Khan tries to escape with his crew by smuggling them in torpedoes.

    He’s discovered and has to flee by himself.

    He assumes that his crew is killed by Marcus as retaliation.

    Goes on a terrorist rampage for revenge and steals a transwarp
    transporter device from Section 31 programmed to beam to
    Kronos because that’s how they spy on the Klingons.

    Marcus, totally aware of the torpedioes content sends Kirk to Kill Khan with his own crew and sabotage the Enterprise to start a war with the Klingons.

    Kirk grows a conscience and threatens Khan with the torpedoes to make him surrender instead.

    Khan Realizes that Marcus sent Kirk to kill him with his own
    crew. It’s easy to deduce, Marcus would never want him alive, and
    Starfleet would never threaten to fire torpedoes on Kronos and provoke a
    war unless they were untraceable. The only untraceable torpedoes
    Starfleet has have 72 augments in them.

    Khan realises the ship is not moving because Marcus sabotaged it. If he hadn’t, Kirk could have killed Khan and is old crew, but would not have started a war with the Klingons because the Enterprise would have left and torpedoes were untraceable.

    Khan surrendered because he had no choice to save his crew and he spills all his beans to Kirk because it’s his only chance to survive.

    Khan didn’t plan shit in advance he reacted to every situation.

    The only issue is the transporters who only work when it suits the plot.

    • ObeyMyBrain

      One other big issue is that the torpedoes wouldn’t have gone anywhere because their fuel supply had been replaced with frozen people. If Marcus knew Khan’s crew were hidden in the torpedoes, why did he give them to Kirk to kill Khan with knowing they couldn’t be fired? Now if Marcus didn’t know the crew was in the torpedoes, and Khan knew they were still alive and Marcus didn’t know where they were and he lied about thinking they were dead as the reason for his attack on Starfleet, it would be a great way to get his crew off of Earth. Flee to Kronos where they have to use the torpedoes to kill him. Torpedoes won’t fire without fuel, take over ship that has torpedoes on it, free crew.

    • Phil

      Also the movie is a clear criticism of Obama’s drone assassination program and Khan is an analogy for the CIA using Jihadist as operatives and it getting blown in their face.

      It’s not very profound but at least it’s current.

      • Duck4Cover

        I guess it’s sort of like a Zero Trek Thirty

    • Ben

      Thank you. I had to pause about 22 minutes in and seriously considered not watching the rest because obviously nobody involved actually kept up with the plot. There are *a lot* of problems with ‘Into Darkness,’ but the plot wasn’t one of them.

      • Percy Gryce

        It’s got 99 problems, but the plot ain’t one?

  • snqrls

    Yeah, I think they’re oversimplifying the plot. Film was too short, but it handled tone masterfully, and even the sequences that didn’t make much sense, make sense if you think about them. Example: khan was reacting impulsively but not without design. He probably put his people into podds because he expected the admiral to come after him personally. Then called the klingons to both start a war, and to kill the head of the federation, and hopefully (with a bit of ingenuity) get his people back.

    That’s what really struck me about this supposed shlock. It was very relatable, unlike many of the more cerebral films.

  • tony

    great entertaining discussion. So basically it sounds to me like the second is like what everybody expected before the 1st one i guess.

  • super butt

    I think Old Spock has Bendii Syndrome

    • PegasusFantasy

      been sayin this for years…

  • Derrick Cryderman

    Apparently soldering irons are mini welding torches, as evidence from from jay’s repairs

    • Dan Hibiki

      it is if you wrap it in bacon.

  • http://bytestemplar.com/ Fortyseven

    Surprised there was no mention of the reuse (and expanded range) of transwarp beaming and how that, like Khan’s Magic Blood, changes everything. :P

    • or pick a name

      And could’ve been used dozens of times in the years after when Earth was threaten. Even if that was a secret Section 31 bullshit technology.
      Also Khan is a Space Jesus now, meh.
      I was really disappointed with this movie. I’ve expected the action, and got even more in that area, but the plot… Stupid and inconsistent. Let the JJA do Star Wars finally and leave Star Trek. I’m a fan of both franchises, but in SW the current approach to ST would simply work better.

  • disqus_kmv6XEt4Jn

    I’m usually a big fan of RLM and enjoy watching your analsyses, but this review was absolutely terrible. It’s like you went into the movie expecting to hate it and then didn’t even pay attention to the basic plot, or how it tied in with the Original Series episode “Space Seed.”

    In “Space Seed” when the Enterprise discovered the Botany Bay, they didn’t have any trouble deducing who the leader of the crew was. If they could figure it out, then Admiral Robocop could probably figure it out too. That’s not a plothole or a “coincidence.” It was established in the Original Series. Then, once Khan was awake he said he was an engineer so he could look at the Enterprise’s schematics. In just a few minutes he was able to figure out enough about the ship to be able to cripple it and take over. (The method he used to take over, that is shutting off life support to the bridge, is even referenced in “Into Darkness” when Khan and Spock are having their back and forth about how everything is going to play out.) But imagine what Khan would have been able to do if he had full access to the technology and scientific advancements of the 24th century. Why, he might even be able to build a supership and super torpedoes.

    Khan was the one who put the augments in the torpedoes as part of his plan to escape from Weller’s influence. I picture the situation like Iron Man, where the super-genius is being held by the bad guy to build weapons, only is secretly plotting his escape. Except in Khan’s case, he’s also plotting the escape of his 72 frozen “family members.” He is discovered, and is forced to flee by himself. He thinks his augments were killed as hostages, and so goes on a revenge spree against Starfleet and Admiral Robocop. It’s not until Sulu threatens him from space with a drone strike . . . I mean, space torpedo strike, that he realizes his augments are still alive. At this point the only avenue left open to him is to surrender and attempt to get Kirk on his side. Weller was just using he brash and recently demoted Kirk to pin the whole thing on as his patsy, and seized on the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone: get rid of Khan and the augments, and start a war with the Klingons.

    There’s probably more, but I turned off your review after getting halfway through because of the amount of pure bullshit that was being shoveled. Next time try to stay awake during the movie.

    • Ian Williamson

      How about you write another 4 indignant paragraphs about the injustice of someone not liking a popcorn thriller.

      • Din

        You sound more indignant than he does, and you managed to do it in just one sentence. And — oh no — not FOUR WHOLE PARAGRAPHS. I haven’t read that much since I graduated high school.

        How about if you’re going to respond to someone’s critical, generally well thought out comment, you do so in a way that contributes something beyond an insipid, throw-away line that’s sole purpose is to seemingly bolster your to-cool-for-school, standoffish internet cred.

        • Ian Williamson

          Dude If you want to make up a bunch of reasons for why I’m obviously just “trying to act cool” in a comment section I won’t stop you, but it’s frankly insecure.

          My comment was not about the length of his post with-out context, but rather it’s comical length in relation to it’s content (a bitter point by point refutation of 2 amateur reviewers opinion on a mass market thriller).

          • Din

            “A bunch of reasons.” No. There was only one reason. If your response was devoid of substance — which it was — the why bother making it? And 4 paragraphs isn’t comically long when you consider the length of the review. Whether the reviewers are “amateur” or not is also irrelevant. In fact, Mike and Jay do take in some revenue from this show, I assume, so wouldn’t that actually make them professional…ish?

            That’s not even the point, though. In general, there’s no reason to discourage dialogue, regardless of the forum. But you happen to disagree, I guess.

          • Steve

            Din, be quiet or you’ll sit at the kiddy table.

          • Noah

            NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERD!

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=599459594 Michael Little

        Popcorn thriller. LOL. How talks like that? Go watch indie films about smug, self-important douchebags being self destructive.

    • stolliosis

      Why don’t you try to keep readers of your post awake. RLM is damned if they do, damned if they don’t. People couldn’t believe RLM liked Iron Man 3; but, they are aghast when they don’t like a movie. It is their opinion. But their opinion is right. Star Trek Into Darkness had sloppy writing.

      • disqus_kmv6XEt4Jn

        I think you misunderstand my problem with this review. I’m not saying that “Into Darkness” didn’t have sloppy writing. It did, and there were a few parts I laughed out loud at it (KHAAAAAAAN! for example.) No, my problem is that I usually like RLM and respect their analysis of movies. They’re usually very fair to movies of less-than-exceptional quality, simply because they’re enjoyable to watch. They are also usually very insightful. In this case, however, they didn’t even pay attention to the basic plot when it was SPELLED OUT FOR THEM. They’re trashing things as plotholes or coincidences, when they weren’t. I’m not attacking their opinion of the movie, I’m attacking the things they got factually wrong on which they based their opinion.

        • stolliosis

          I see your point. I can sort of agree. I don’t want to speak for them, but I would bet that even if they were aware of those things, at least for Mike and Rich who seem to be true Trek fans, it wouldn’t have matter. That is precisely the problem. When Star Trek is a 100 MPH action movie and story is like the third thing on the list, things like your mentioning get lost. Or maybe they were too drunk to pickup on that stuff. Mike’s been drinking a lot of whiskey lately.

          • disqus_kmv6XEt4Jn

            If he’s drinking whiskey he’s doing a heckuva lot better than me.I was drunk on PBR when I saw the movie.

          • Mark Bisone

            Did the theater have wood paneling?

          • disqus_kmv6XEt4Jn

            Retro hipsters are so lame. So what we did was we recorded the movie on a 12 inch LP and spun that baby back at thirty-three and a half rpms on the Victor. It was really cool. I mean lame.

  • http://www.facebook.com/eric.mchugh.5 Eric McHugh

    RIIIIIIIIIIIIIICH!!!!!

  • Jumpy

    Blip into darkness for 90 seconds.

  • Juan Ricardo

    They didn’t use all of the blood on Kirk, Bones created a serum……to save Kirk and it took time….

    • steve

      …And? You still have an anti death elixir that can be fairly easily produced and distributed.

  • dongaroo

    why is Rich Evans drinking a mason jar of pee, is that why his voice is so high

  • Mark

    Is there an unedited longer cut of the conversation between you guys? I would love to check that out.

  • Ian Williamson

    ‘s funny how defensive nerds get when you don’t like whatever thing they have invested interest into. Concocting all sorts of fanciful projections about why your inability to get into something is evidence of your “condescension” or “pretension”.

    • Manioc

      How dare fans of something have opinions! This is why I stay coolly detached from everything in life.

      • Ian Williamson

        It actually sounds like you’re a weird spazz from how personally you take a critique of of a piece of media you consumed, but maybe that’s just me.

        • Manioc

          It’s probably because you are reflexively jumping to defend RLM without paying attention to what people have actually written.

          • Ian Williamson

            I’m not defending anything dude, but if you need to project me as some sort of hive-mind opposition to feel justified about your list of wierd nerd-observations I could really give a shit.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=599459594 Michael Little

            Of course you defend these douchebags. You look like the star of some shitty indie movie Jay would dickride.

    • Noah

      I notice you’ve been throwing around the word “nerd”, which is funny considering you’ve engaged in more defensive conversation about how people should respect each other’s opinions by being disrespectful while they give a difference of opinion.

      You mind if I give a sweeping shallow generalization too? I’m going to safely assume you’re a hipster douche bag. Possibly the man that was there to pick up the VCR? You mad they didn’t include you in the discussion? Enjoy fucking midgets and getting enemas from elephants.

  • Nanbo

    I also have to say, for the guys trying to push “Why are films made for small screens when the technology exists”…and calling the audience dumb…ummm. So I watched Star Trek Darness on a pirated site from a guy that brought in a 540pxl camera…pure crap, but I saw the film…AND I UNDERSTOOD more than these 3 guys. Why did they “happen” to chose Kahn? It was explained, it was not by chance. In fact they explain all that in one of the slowest parts of the film. They explain it was because he was the lead scientist on the war project. Also, that is why he did NOT blow up the building himself but used an insider. Some that was close to the leader of the federation (guy that dies in the office shoot out and pisses off kirk). Also, the men in the missiles was cleary explained as well.
    In fact a BETTER arguing point is who assigned the federal bad guys daughter to Kirks ship, that whole set up had a for seeable pay off. But was not clearly explained to much.
    YEah, I got that from a crapy pirate version…so why do these guy insist we all watch films on “X milimeter” etc… They don’t seem to be catching on to films in general. Or at least getting super lazy in the reviews. I blame Mike for no longer drinking (I noticed no ones drinking actually. Mike was sneaking redbull in the older beet scenes as well).
    Star Trek must have divided them more than we see here. Those comic book nerds they hang out with durring the best of the worst probably had some things to say, but would just fuck the critic up. I think they took to big of a film franchise this time. This is a film everyone saw not because of it’s franchise (because most think it is boring, like he said), but because JJ did it, and they saw the first action filled one.
    All that said, I do agree with 70% of what they said here. It was a big dumb action film, and you had to try hard to make it fit to almost any past franchise. I also think that Old Spock scene was the most stupid thing in the film. IT ruined an entire scene of suspense and made no sense. Why call future spock in the middle of a battle and not Federal police????? Just dumb.
    They need JJ to do action, Some one else to do story, and some one else to do script. But like I said, NEW star Trek is a tough franchise, you have to pull from Moral and ethics in the originals, or intelligent design off the original films (and even those were kind of bad). This leaves us with one conclusion. STOP MAKING TREK MOVIES and build up a good series, then lead to new movies…maybe…like that crap, Defiance.
    I Remember when the announcement of the next generation a tv show, was just as big as the coming of christ of Star Wars 2 and 3… It was HOLY SHIT I am watching this! It rocked. And that is TV level. Now we can’t even get that excited with porn on public access any more. FUCK MOVIES.

    • PegasusFantasy

      you think you got the movie, but you didn’t.

    • Steve

      Right off the bat, with your very first attempt at getting what they said wrong… You got it wrong. The question asked was, how come it just so happens that they woke Khan up first out of the 72 other augments? Just because the guys in TOS did it, does not bare out that it would happen that way again. You went on to then fail miserably in the rest of your post. Basically, as PegasusFantasy said, you didn’t get this movie.

  • HNTR 77

    Hold on. Mike, Jay, Rich, you guys missed the point of this movie. First of all, are you suggesting that “Into Darkness” was trying to tell audiences that 9/11 was inside job, with that ending joke? If so you guys are just as much conspiracy theorists as people who would believe 9/11 was an inside job, only you’d have made a conspiracy theory about Hollywood. That’s pointless! Hm. I generally don’t go pointing fingers.

    This movie has one of the most refreshing moral messages in recent memory. The Dark Knight and the many films it inspired push the correct message that “Terrorism is heinous and despicable”. But the Dark Knight also pushes the message that “Terrorism must be fought with any means necessary”; this is a much more debatable theme.

    Batman uses his “cell phone sonar device at the end of ‘The Dark Knight’” to catch the Joker. This could be allegorical to the Patriot Act (also of debatable ethicality). If Nolan’s Dark Knight is crafted to give audiences a cathartic depiction of terrorism being defeated with lethal force then Into Darkness is crafted to give audiences a depiction of the age old adage “love your enemies (pray for those who hate you, etc.)”.

    You see Khan is a terrorist, but he also has something very valuable; his blood. In the same way, those who commit heinous acts of terrorism, though they deserve justice in full, also have something valuable. I’ll refer specifically to Muslim cultural identity; it’s something to be valued and respected along with every culture. More than that, the people who commit acts of terrorism, are just that; people. People who need to be understood.

    Admiral Robocop didn’t understand this. He saw a foreign culture; the Klingons, as just a threat with no chance of peaceful coexistence between his culture and theirs.
    Seeing him as a tool, the Admiral used Khan to build powerful weapons to combat the Klingons. Weapons which, like Batman’s sonar device, may have had terrible repercussions for Starfleet. So you didn’t like the Admiral? Good, because you played right into the writer’s hands.

    A movie can be a fast paced action flick and still be wise. I’m not saying this movie holds a candle to blissfully, less emotionally taxing, slow paced heady Sci-fi, like 2001, the Star Trek Motion Picture, or even the Wrath of Khan (the genesis device being conceptually fascinating; a powerful seed), but Into Darkness’ message is clear and commendable; it’s the timeless truth “He who fights with monsters might take care, lest he thereby become a monster” and the advice to “love your neighbor as yourself”. We should accept other people and cultures and what they have to offer, and learn, though we won’t forget, to forgive. It doesn’t get more Star Trek than that guys.

    Mike, Jay, please email me if you have critiques of my interpretation :)

    • PegasusFantasy

      have u read Orci’s blog/twitter? he is a HUGE conspiracy nutter, he does indeed claim 9/11 is an inside job

      Also:

      “You see Khan is a terrorist, but he also has something very valuable; his blood. In the same way, those who commit heinous acts of terrorism, though they deserve justice in full, also have something valuable. I’ll refer specifically to Muslim cultural identity; it’s something to be valued and respected along with every culture. More than that, the people who commit acts of terrorism, are just that; people. People who need to be understood.”

      errrmm… kahn was made out to be SPACE HITLER in this movie, so your alleged message don’t make no sense

      • Guest

        No I’m not interested in pursuing that line of thought. I would care very much if I found out something like that theory were true, but there are bigger problems, and better ways to spend my time, than trying to confirm something that can’t really be confirmed.

        • PegasusFantasy

          me neither.. i was merely pointing out that maybe that’s why they put the 9/11 sketch in the review..

    • Dr. Sensible

      I thought the 9/11 thing was just something to throw in to get Rich’s character out of the scene without too much to do. I believe that you read too much into that.

      Also… Terrorists are people with rich Muslim Cultural Identity? I’m going to do you a favor and not read into that as Muslims culture is one where they blow up children in school buses because they believe they can get sex a whole bunch in the afterlife.

      See, terrorists are scum. They murder and terrorize people to force them into actions that they believe are right. They have no concern about other people’s culture. They have no concern about other people’s beliefs and freedoms. They’re not people. They have no sense of right or wrong. They are mostly just ignorant cultists following a grand leader who uses them for their own power.

      Muslims and Muslim culture have nothing to do with that. We can understand, respect, and see Muslims as people because that is clearly something separate than being a terrorist. Being German does not make you a Nazi, nor does being Christian mean that part of the Westboro Baptist Church.

      Also… Klingons are not a group of cowards that hide in a populace and try to murder children. Spoke used the Nixon / China example in Star Trek 6 to correctly point out that this is a group of people with a very different mindset, and need to be handled in the correct way if peace were to come along. There is absolutely no connection to terrorists with the Klingon / Federation relationship, just Kahn blowing up a building.

      P.S. They didn’t like Admiral Robocop because he was a terrible character, not because the writers are good at their jobs.

      • HNTR 77

        No, Markus was not a terrible character; he served the script well. He’s supposed to be hated…

        I dunno. I’m not trying to be unfriendly, but it makes me sad to see you say something like “They’re not people. They have no sense of right or wrong.” when in fact it is a Muslims’ very sense of right and wrong which, tragic as it is, drove the select group to attack us on that horrible day. You even admit; they “…terrorize people to force them into actions that they believe are right.” This is a contradiction, a lapse in logic which illustrates that you have no argument and do not understand what I’m saying. I’m not trying to be mean about this, but the truth can be a real pain in the ass…

        And “Dr. Sensible”, have you not noticed that the RLM guys usually wrap up their half in the bag features with a gag that illustrates their main critique of the film they’re reviewing? Go back and watch a few with a discerning eye and you might catch what I have.

  • Jordan

    Was that guy Mr. Plinkett’s grandson?

  • Whet

    When is the next Monkey Man movie?

  • UnShame

    I like how the description of this video basically says “Go watch the movie. Even if you don’t wanna watch the movie, go watch the movie anyway”

    • downloadingacarrightnow

      I’ll watch it when there is a decent copy in my local piratebay-stuff-for-free store.

      Fuck Hollywood.

  • poop

    SO JAY, ALLOW ME TO REPEATEDLY MISPRONOUNCE THE NAME OF THE FILM WE ARE ABOUT TO DISCUSS FOR COMEDIC EFFECT!

    • downloadingacarrightnow

      STOKLAAAAAAAASAAAAA!!!!!!!!

    • Percy Gryce

      Less a mispronunciation than a malapropism.

  • ruinyou

    Loved this review…I was waiting so waiting for this and they didn’t disappoint. Great work guys.

  • Paul

    You complained about Leonard Nimoy’s scene as being “fan service” but you praised the Avengers to no end when the first 40 minutes of that film was nothing but fan service! It was one massive round up scene that was just an excuse to get characters on screen to fight that never really amounts to anything. What was it, Hulk and Thor that fight or something? It was totally pointless other than for people to gasp and go “Omg, Hulk and Thor are fighting! Awesum!”

    You give that a pass, but you totally slam it? I normally really enjoy your reviews, but I think you grossly oversimplified the plot of this movie and did not particularly pay attention to what was actually happening. It felt to me like you went into this movie expecting to hate it. I’ve never really been one to say something when other people have said it better than I, so I will direct you to a comment made by a user; “disqus_kmv6XEt4Jn”

  • Manioc

    Aw, this is the first Half in the Bag I’ve really disagreed with. I can’t believe you all missed the “War on Terror” subtext; Khan = Muslim terrorists / mujahideen, Robocop = Bush Administration, Klingon homeworld = Iraq / Afghanistan. It wasn’t particularly profound, but there are like a half-dozen Trek movies with dumber plots. You also can’t reasonably expect a 2-hour movie to pack in the character development of two seasons of TOS. Having Spock and Kirk be friends in STID because the audience expects them to be spares us having to listen to extra dialogue just to establish what we already know is a central aspect of the franchise.

    Also what was up with Jay’s mic? Were you recording underwater? RUINED FOREVER!

  • Wrasidlo

    When it comes to the Prime Directive, there’s several ways of looking at it.

    It always seemed to me that the spirit of the prime directive was a combination of “Getting involved with pre-warp cultures usually has a lot of bad consequences for them” (which we saw in episodes like Who Watches the Watchers), and “don’t exploit technologically inferior races for our own ends” (like we saw in Errand of Mercy), and finally, “We can have such a big effect on pre-warp cultures, it’s best we don’t do it frivolously (like we saw in this movie).

    In all those cases, it seems to be that the Prime directive is there to protect other cultures from us.

    The problem is, a lot of people take this to mean that the universe has some metaphysical “destiny” that we shouldn’t change. That makes absolutely no sense to me. We live in the universe. Every single decision we make affects the universe in ways we can’t comprehend. There’s literally no distinction between every single choice we make all the time (intentionally or not), through action or inaction. I can’t think of a single good reason why Startfleet would intentionally let an entire planet die (which they did explicitly say was a consequence of that volcano going off).

    • Dr. Sensible

      The Prime Directive is actually more of a “we don’t know what the consequences of our actions will be, so let’s give everyone the right to struggle and thrive that we got”. See, there are a number of things that can happen to these people, the first and most obvious is “they all die”. However, we’ve seen a lot of different things happen to a lot of different species of the series, and it may actually hurt them if we interfere.

      The species may be able to adapt/evolve in a way that they can survive their new predicament. The people / wildlife may rely on the destructive forces as something that happens on their world at predetermined increments. The people may secretly be an advanced species that does not need or want our help and our interference in what we see as a threat may come as a severe annoyance to them where they start to get involved in our business (actually happened in a TOS episode).

      Next, we don’t know if we help things won’t get worst. We may help them only for them to turn into a race of barbarian thugs in 500 years and murder a dozen other planets or a cross-species disease forms and infects every member of the Federation with Super-AIDS. Another species that lives on the planet may have thrived on the planet and become an intelligent life form, but never will because they are the food of the savages we currently saved.

      Worst yet, we may end up destroying their culture because they never were forced to try to thrive in their new circumstances. They may be put on the intergalactic version of welfare where they expect food, protection, or technology and get used to being taken care of.

      Point is: We don’t know what is going to happen and we really don’t have any right to interfere with the natural evolution of their planet and species. I 100% agree with the Prime Directive because it protects the Federation from reprisals and treats things fairly.

      • Steve

        There’s one simple piece of morality that overrides everything you just said.

        If you have the power to save a life, and you choose not to, you are essentially a murderer. Period.

  • Grendelsan

    I’ll start off by saying that as a standalone film, the new Star Trek
    isn’t bad. I think it would be easy to take Abrams to task by removing
    much of the philosophical and moral plodding that permeated the original
    series to create, essentially, Indiana Jones in space. But, as I said, I
    understand this is a reboot and Abrams’ take on the universe is
    addressing on the issues that many had with Star Trek, that it was too
    cerebral, too plodding, and, frankly, boring. I’m fine with more action
    and fast pacing, though can Abrams please stop with the solar flares in
    nearly every scene? They’re fucking distracting.

    Unfortunately,
    this is not just another Star Trek story. It’s a Khan story and as a
    Khan story, the most “beloved” villain in all of Star Trekdom, it’s a
    pile of crap in my opinion. Khan was an Indian man played by a Cuban
    actor. I have no issues with that bit of illogic, because Montalban
    played Khan flawlessly. He was perfect and needed no polishing, no
    remaking, no nothing. That being said, I realize the reboot means
    everything is on the table. Fine. I can deal with Khan being redone to
    some extent. Different contextual situations mean different choices and
    outcomes. I can accept that. But, nothing about the time travel
    silliness of the first film (which, again, I really liked) would have
    changed Khan from an Indian with a Cuban accent, to a white British guy.
    Nothing. Khan was frozen and drifting in space on the Botany Bay before
    the time travel divergence, and continued to do so afterward. Turning
    him into a British guy is a friggin’ insult to the memory of Montelban
    and Gene Roddenberry and should be to anyone who liked Khan Noonien
    Singh as a character.

    Let’s also talk about his character.
    Montalban’s Khan was a passionate, brooding, emotive figure and all that
    played into his charisma. Cumberbatch’s Khan was practically Vulcan in
    his stoicism, at least until the end when his ship was blown up and he
    was facing death. Sure, Cumberbatch can interpret the character how he
    likes, but, to me, this points to Abrams’ misunderstanding about the
    complexity of Khan. Speaking of Khan’s ship blowing up, for about twenty
    minutes after that, Abrams forgot that Khan was even in the film. It
    moved to Kirk’s death and Spock’s delivery of the “Khaaaaaaaan!” line
    without any other mention or scene change that showed that Khan didn’t
    die in the explosion. I was genuinely surprised when the focus switched
    back to Khan in the failing ship because, frankly, I thought Abrams
    wanted us to assume Khan had blown up. It was all a setup for the iconic
    Khaaan! line as a wink to the audience that Abrams is with the old
    material. Well, I found it insulting that he had to switch his focus to
    build up that scene to get the payoff while leaving Khan to just linger
    for 20 minutes. It’s shoddy filmmaking.

    Speaking of insults,
    what the heck was Leonard Nimoy doing in the film? He told young Spock
    what he already knew, that Khan was dangerous. OK, fine. Then young
    Spock asks what old Spock did to fix the Khan situation originally.
    Camera switches to something else (I can’t remember exactly what it
    was). We are meant to assume that old Spock told young Spock the story.
    Well, in “Space Seed” Khan was sent to a new planet to colonize with his
    people. In “Wrath of Khan” he blew himself up into the Genesis planet.
    Young Spock and crew did neither of these things to defeat Khan. So,
    Nimoy’s presence was just there to offer nothing but another nostalgic
    wink to the audience. Thanks Abrams. I don’t need you to insult my
    intelligence by giving Nimoy a cameo with no point.

    The beauty
    of “Wrath of Khan” is Spock dies in the end and he doesn’t come back.
    The audience is left with a very dark feeling of sadness because Spock
    was a beloved character from the series and the first two films. In the
    new film, Kirk dies and then Spock screams the “Khaaaan!” line, but
    apparently Khan’s blood is some super-placebo that both cures diseases
    AND brings dead people back to life. How convenient. We learn this
    through another nod to the original series (I get it Abrams, quit
    beating us over the head with it) when a tribble comes back to life
    after being injected with Khan’s blood. Now, the crew has to take Khan
    alive to use his super zombie blood to revive Kirk. No, there’s no
    thought put in to killing Khan, unfreezing one of his other superpals
    and using that blood to revive Kirk, but I digress. Khan is knocked out,
    blood is taken, Kirk is brought back to life, Khan is frozen again all
    is well with the world. It’s all resolved in a nice tight bow so
    conveniently. I found it insulting.

    Imagine if someone remade
    Empire Strikes Back and instead of the down point the film left us with,
    the new story had Han being saved from Boba Fett, Luke escapes his
    encounter with Vader unscathed, and the future looks bright for the
    rebellion. The magic would be gone.

    There are other little things
    like Scotty being sent to the secret coordinates and finds…a
    starfleet ship. So? Scotty is a starfleet engineer and he found a new
    ship. What about that ship would make him feel the need to sneak on
    board and sabotage it? Why would Abrams want to explain a key part of
    the plot like that?

  • http://twitter.com/Tea575 Tea557

    I normally love Half in the bag but this review sucks. First off if Jay isn’t a Trek fan he needs to STFU. And you say Iron Man 3 was good but this has all these problems?? PLEASE. If Star Trek isn’t your thing don’t expect to give a crap about this. And of course they are going to try to appeal to the masses-Star Trek as a franchise was DEAD before the 2009 reboot.

    • Wes Kerfoot

      If these movies are meant to “appeal to the masses” then why does someone need to be a fan of Star Trek in general to critique it?

  • http://twitter.com/Tea575 Tea557

    And you guys are trying to oversimplify the plot-this movie had a good plot.

    • PegasusFantasy

      really? Explain it then. In a way that it makes sense / still sounds good on paper

      • http://twitter.com/Tea575 Tea557

        I think their points are completely off base and the things they make fun of are not ‘stupid’ and don’t ‘appeal to the masses’. I’m not wasting my time explaining the plot because no one will read it anyway.

        • dennett316

          In other words, you just like being contrary and don’t want to explain why, because you can’t.
          Your comment below is basically “I used to love what these guys said about film, until they didn’t like one that I liked, so now their opinions mean nothing…even though I seemed to have no problem with them before”.
          Also, it’s possible to appeal to the masses without dumb, illogical writing ruining things. Mass appeal and quality are not mutually exclusive.

      • phil

        Military commander forcibly recruits terrorist for covert subversive operation. When blow back occurs, he sends young hot head to assassinate terrorist in a frame up operation.

        When the mission goes south and the terrorist is apprehended instead of killed, the military commander confronts young hot head who has to team up with the terrorist to defeat their common foe.

        Terrorist betrays young hot head during the struggle and kills military commander but is ultimately apprehended in the end.

        • PegasusFantasy

          that’s not much an explanation as a synopsis..

    • Steve

      No. It didn’t. Drink your tea.

  • I also have a small penis

    that guy had small hands and most likely a small penis

  • Nulevo

    Jesus guys. It’s impossible to find a reviewer who agrees with every single one of your opinions unless you review them yourself. So you don’t agree with what they’re saying, so what? They’re not making the show to confirm your opinion, they just wanna talk about movies.

    • Ian Williamson

      Lot’s of people view disagreement as an attack on their viewpoint and then defensively react against it to reassert their worldview.

      • downloadingacarrightnow

        Opinions something something assholes something something is one.

      • Reggie_Rock

        My god your comments are boring and useless. Look at your comment history, one substantive remark. Everything else is, “why do you care when I don’t?” with condescending insults. Why are you even here, you waste of bandwidth? Come back when you have something worthwhile to add.

        • yourlifeismeaningless

          Reads boring and useless comment.Posts boring and useless comment about boring and useless comment.

          Go ahead downvote you fuck.

          Also your mom.

  • randominternetperson786

    I find it funny how people post way too long comments…who is going to read those?Who has that kind of time? Or interest is some nobodies opinion ?

    There is going to be over 9000 useless comments here anyway(including this one) so to post a short novel or a long one is a bit presumptuous ..unless you people just post shit without giving a damn if anybody reads it…

    • Din

      This comment is decidedly more useless than most of the others. Who cares if someone wants to write a lengthy, thoughtful comment? At least it serves as evidence that there are people who can think and are capable of making coherent arguments. Even if no one does take the time to read a long comment, it’s pretty common human practice for people write things that they never intend to share with anybody — you know, like a private journal or a diary?

      What’s presumptuous is assuming that everybody shares your awful attitude — i.e. that the opinion of “some nobody” is worthless and not worth anybody’s time. So how do you decide whose opinion is worthwhile whose isn’t, exactly? Like, Jay and Mike are guys with a popular internet review show, so it’s OK to spend 45 minutes watching them, but it’s a crime against humanity to spend 5 minutes reading someone’s comment that’s like five paragraphs long? I don’t find your comment funny at all. I think it’s depressing.

      • whysoserious
      • e-penis

        You are a twat.

        • Din

          OK.

          • Ian Williamson

            Give it a rest nerd your not going to save discourse by making a bunch of people post essays about the plot points of summer block busters.

          • Din

            Alright. I guess I should just stick to name-calling and witless, single sentence retorts. I’ll try to avoid the dubious grammar, though.

          • Ian Williamson

            awesome, thanks!

    • Reggie_Rock

      Maybe because they just want to and don’t give a fuck whether braindead gobshites like yourself read it or not.

  • Ricky Bobby

    The movie was entertaining but dumb, indeed. I liked the movie and its action pieces and if they put some more plot in the next it will be even better. I am not a fan of TOS and only started with TNG series but I think these movies are fine. I’m not sure if they can get another one as dumb as this one and grant them a 4th film. I wished there was less nostalgia implied and focused more on the future. Star Wars will be the same, a jumbled mess with nostalgia elements and good action.

  • Kaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan

    alright, Rich, you should have him more often.
    P.S. When “someone” is acting Mr. Plinkett they resemble Winston Churchill, he he !!

  • http://twitter.com/Tea575 Tea557

    I am DONE with Mike and Jay after this review and now Ebert’s dead, what reviews am I going to read/watch?

    • grow up will ya

      People have different opinions.
      Welcome to adulthood.

    • Noah

      “Aww, man! These guys don’t share my opinion on *insert movie title here*! They suck! And differences of opinion are stoooopid. Doodie heads! I LIKE EXCLAMATIONS!!”

    • Percy Gryce

      To paraphrase Samuel Johnson, Why, Sir, you find no man, at all intellectual, who is willing to leave RLM. No, Sir, when a man is tired of RLM, he is tired of life; for there is in RLM all that life can afford.

  • go suck a dick

    I want to watch this review but I can’t because this website is a piece of shit so can you guys or someone else upload the reviews to YouTube:)

  • Old Dood

    Well I LIKED IT!

    Yes, it is not perfect nor canon however, I liked it and I was SAD to see what happened to Christoper Pike.

    (I figured they had to do something like that with his character at some point anyways but it was sad just the same)

    My wife Cried in this movie.

    no different than when we were on a date’ over thirty years ago watching The Wrath of Khan.

    Men were choked up and women were openly crying in the Wrath of Khan.

    I was choked up watching this movie.

    This movie had a lot of that same effect of The Wrath of Khan.

    After 30 years (my wife and I just had our 30th anniversary BTW) to us at least we liked it and enjoyed it.

    We like the actors playing the characters even though we know that the original actors were our ‘favorites’.

    I think they did a good job ‘Re-Booting’ this franchise.

    Could it have been done ‘BETTER’ Or ‘DIFFERENTLY’? Of course but for us we are Thankful they did this Re-Boot.

    We are looking forward now to the Five Year Mission of more Re-Booted Star TreK.

    Regards,
    Old Dood

  • Yukons

    You nailed it. If I may answer your question, “How do you explain why this is not Star Trek” Out of all the endless future-based scifi stories out there, Star Trek is the only story that says that the ‘golden age’ is ahead of us, that humanity gets better. Contrast that against EVERYTHING else that portrays the future as apocalyptic, dystopian, or a generally nasty place to live. In all other scifi, the ‘golden age’ behind us, the good ‘ol days are gone.

    This is because it’s easier to write for characters that are in hard times. It’s easier to build heroes out of a world of villains. I know ‘New Trek’ has the federation and all that, but its militarized and dark. And don’t tell me it’s because that’s what the script called for. That’s lazy writing, taking the easy way out.

    Anyone who thought this movie was anything remotely as rich/intelligent as the 80s Trek movies, TNG, DS9 or VOY is diluted. And anyone who doesn’t know Trek at all but thinks this movie was pretty sweet, well.. it’s all yours. Because ‘into darkness’ is not my trek.

    • http://www.facebook.com/griffin.bain Griffin Bain

      A dystopian future is not inherently lazy, that’s preposterous. And I personally always struggled with the notion of a glorious and prosperous future where we all work together, frankly because it isn’t believable.

      I agree that this new film isn’t really much like the Star Trek series (although saying Voyager is intelligent is a bit of a stretch) or the original films, but what’s with the outrage? The 2009 film wasn’t like any of that stuff either.

      • Yukons

        Thanks for the good response.

        Believable is a point of view, but it is rare as I said. You’re saying that a dystopian future is a most believable future than a glorious and prosperous future? I just find that a strange position. Why MUST the future be shitty? Again, just my point of view. And Star Trek makes it believable simple with three fictional technologies (replicators, warp drive, transports). If we had these things, I’d call it a utopia.

        And there was conflict, yes. You can’t write without conflict. TNG explored cold war with the Romulans. I don’t recall TOS having any war. DS9 explored real war and how Star Fleet would handle it. It was very entertaining. But most Trek involves PREVENTING war. This new movie prevents some war, I guess. But it was humans trying to start it.

        And everyone bashes Voyager. But while DS9 focused more on a wider range of characters and drama, Voyager was exploring the scifi. There were may excellent scifi concepts in VOY that DS9 never got around to, simply because of the different nature of the two shows. I like em both. Modern shows today have more in common with DS9 (thick mega dramas), so we look back at DS9 like it better stood the test time.

        And I didn’t like Star Trek 2009. Don’t get me wrong, I smiled when I left the theater. Like me, a lot of trek fans were just happy that a trek movie did well at the box office for once. But every review of the film lowers my appreciation. I was hoping the next one would have more in depth.

    • Percy Gryce

      Deluded?

      • Yukons

        thank you, sir

    • ohgobwhatisthis

      LOL you think that *VOYAGER* is rich or intelligent???

      Okay, dumbfuck, keep jerking your Trekkie hipster cock harder. I dunno, maybe things can be enjoyable in different ways, and one is not inherently “better” than the other?

      Nah, that would require getting down from your high horse.

  • http://profiles.google.com/charlesp2009 Charles Petrosky

    Give Rich a chair, ya jerks!

    • downloadingacarrightnow

      chairs are for squares.Cool guys sit on tables.

  • Daruma

    This was the best movie analysis they did for a long, long time. Brilliant work, guys!

  • Percy Gryce

    My suspicions have been confirmed: Jay is the workhorse of Lightning Fast VCR Repair. Mike is the just the pretty face out front.

  • Krotch ScroteGuzzle

    The fanboys defending this movie are as bad as the Episode 1 fanboys.

    • Zacra

      One of the big differences, however, is that Episode 1 had little to no character depth in anyone and was incredibly boring, while this has some clear character depth/arcs and wasn’t boring.

      • http://www.facebook.com/griffin.bain Griffin Bain

        I disagree. Into Darkness is better than the Star Wars prequels. In fact, I’d go as far as saying it’s better than any of the TNG movies, or 4 or 5. Or the 2009 film. Admittedly that’s faint praise.

      • Krotch ScroteGuzzle

        Ok. I’ll give you that it wasn’t even in the ballpark of badness as Ep1. ;)

  • Bruce

    I think Mike and Jay missed out on a few details.

    Khan thought his crew was dead, thus he sought vengeance on the star fleet council. Also the same reason he was surprised to hear of the 72 missile payload, and why he surrendered voluntarily.

    I thought it was a really good movie, but I take it at face value because I’m not a Star Trek veteran.

  • Percy Gryce

    Moopies. Boobies. Tubies.

  • Zacra

    Everyone keeps saying that Khan got caught on purpose when he didn’t. He heard how many missiles the Enterprise had (and knew each one of them contained one of his crew members) and surrendered because he didn’t want to lose them. It was nice that they didn’t have him get caught on purpose then escape as a “master plan”, like Skyfall, Avengers, and TDK. Instead, he surrendered because his crew was at risk and didn’t escape, but was released to help the Enterprise. I myself was scared that this movie was going to follow the “genius escape” trope that’s been prominent lately, but I was very pleased to see that it hadn’t.

    This movie did also have substance that you guys seemed to miss, including the whole point of the opening scene. The point of the opening sequence was to present the whole “needs of the few vs. needs of the many” concept as a starting point. This movie is much more Spock’s than it is Kirk’s. Spock at the beginning is sticking to to logical “needs of the many” priority because statistically, it does make more sense to save the many than the few. He’s also scared to feel emotion (much of this still due to the events of the previous movie, when Vulcan was destroyed) because the last time he let himself give into it, it was the most painful thing imaginable. In addition, there are so few Vulcans left that he probably felt pressured to focus on his Vulcan side and ignore his human side.

    By the end of the movie, Spock went through a clear character arc. He learned to give into his emotion and embrace his human half, opening his mind a bit and helping him to recover from Vulcan’s destruction. In addition, the whole final chase with Khan was a test to the “needs of the few vs. needs of the many” conflict. Kirk’s life depended on Khan being alive (“needs of the few”), but if Spock let Khan live to save Kirk, then it’s very possible that more would die as a result of Khan in the future (“needs of the many”). Spock’s choice to spare Khan and save Kirk displayed his difference in choice from the opening (accepting “needs of the many”) and the ending (accepting “needs of the few”). Spock Prime’s cameo was important to the story for this reason. By having Spock Prime tell Spock that Khan was the most dangerous foe the Enterprise ever faced, it made it clear to Spock just how risky it would be leaving Khan alive (this also gave the presence of Khan in the movie a clear purpose from a storytelling perspective). There is more to talk about concerning the themes and arcs in the movie, but Spock’s is by far the most significant and relevant, and for the sake of time (and keeping this post shorter than it would be otherwise), I’ll stop with that.

    In the end, what is Star Trek Into Darkness about? It is about the conflict between “the needs of the few” and “the needs of the many” (save one “important” life and risk losing god-knows-how-many more, or lose the “important” life to guarantee the many’s survival?). It’s about finding a good balance between emotion and logic when making important decisions. There is substance in this movie; it just seems like you didn’t catch it, this time around. And you’re far from being the only ones.

    • war and peace

      Next day, having been invited by the count, Prince Andrew dined with the Rostovs and spent the rest of the day there.

      Everyone in the house realized for whose sake Prince Andrew came, and without concealing it he tried to be with Natasha all day. Not only in the soul of the frightened yet happy and enraptured Natasha, but in the whole house, there was a feeling of awe at something important that was bound to happen. The countess looked with sad and sternly serious eyes at Prince Andrew when he talked to Natasha and timidly started some artificial conversation about trifles as soon as he looked her way. Sonya was afraid to leave Natasha and afraid of being in the way when she was with them. Natasha grew pale, in a panic of expectation, when she remained alone with him for a moment. Prince Andrew surprised her by his timidity. She felt that he wanted to say something to her but could not bring himself to do so.

      In the evening, when Prince Andrew had left, the countess went up to Natasha and whispered: “Well, what?”

      “Mamma! For heaven’s sake don’t ask me anything now! One can’t talk about that,” said Natasha.

      But all the same that night Natasha, now agitated and now frightened, lay long time in her mother’s bed gazing straight before her. She told her how he had complimented her, how he told her he was going abroad, asked her where they were going to spend the summer, and then how he had asked her about Boris.

      “But such a… such a… never happened to me before!” she said. “Only I feel afraid in his presence. I am always afraid when I’m with him. What does that mean? Does it mean that it’s the real thing? Yes? Mamma, are you asleep?”

      “No, my love; I am frightened myself,” answered her mother. “Now go!”

      “All the same I shan’t sleep. What silliness, to sleep! Mummy! Mummy! such a thing never happened to me before,” she said, surprised and alarmed at the feeling she was aware of in herself. “And could we ever have thought!…”

      It seemed to Natasha that even at the time she first saw Prince Andrew at Otradnoe she had fallen in love with him. It was as if she feared this strange, unexpected happiness of meeting again the very man she had then chosen (she was firmly convinced she had done so) and of finding him, as it seemed, not indifferent to her.

      “And it had to happen that he should come specially to Petersburg while we are here. And it had to happen that we should meet at that ball. It is fate. Clearly it is fate that everything led up to this! Already then, directly I saw him I felt something peculiar.”

      “What else did he say to you? What are those verses? Read them…” said her mother, thoughtfully, referring to some verses Prince Andrew had written in Natasha’s album.

      “Mamma, one need not be ashamed of his being a widower?”

      “Don’t, Natasha! Pray to God. ‘Marriages are made in heaven,’” said her mother.

      “Darling Mummy, how I love you! How happy I am!” cried Natasha, shedding tears of joy and excitement and embracing her mother.

      At that very time Prince Andrew was sitting with Pierre and telling him of his love for Natasha and his firm resolve to make her his wife.

      That day Countess Helene had a reception at her house. The French ambassador was there, and a foreign prince of the blood who had of late become a frequent visitor of hers, and many brilliant ladies and gentlemen. Pierre, who had come downstairs, walked through the rooms and struck everyone by his preoccupied, absent-minded, and morose air.

      Since the ball he had felt the approach of a fit of nervous depression and had made desperate efforts to combat it. Since the intimacy of his wife with the royal prince, Pierre had unexpectedly been made a gentleman of the bedchamber, and from that time he had begun to feel oppressed and ashamed in court society, and dark thoughts of the vanity of all things human came to him oftener than before. At the same time the feeling he had noticed between his protegee Natasha and Prince Andrew accentuated his gloom by the contrast between his own position and his friend’s. He tried equally to avoid thinking about his wife, and about Natasha and Prince Andrew; and again everything seemed to him insignificant in comparison with eternity; again the question: for what? presented itself; and he forced himself to work day and night at Masonic labors, hoping to drive away the evil spirit that threatened him. Toward midnight, after he had left the countess’ apartments, he was sitting upstairs in a shabby dressing gown, copying out the original transaction of the Scottish lodge of Freemasons at a table in his low room cloudy with tobacco smoke, when someone came in. It was Prince Andrew.

      “Ah, it’s you!” said Pierre with a preoccupied, dissatisfied air. “And I, you see, am hard at it.” He pointed to his manuscript book with that air of escaping from the ills of life with which unhappy people look at their work.

      Prince Andrew, with a beaming, ecstatic expression of renewed life on his face, paused in front of Pierre and, not noticing his sad look, smiled at him with the egotism of joy.

      “Well, dear heart,” said he, “I wanted to tell you about it yesterday and I have come to do so today. I never experienced anything like it before. I am in love, my friend!”

      Suddenly Pierre heaved a deep sigh and dumped his heavy person down on the sofa beside Prince Andrew.

      “With Natasha Rostova, yes?” said he.

      “Yes, yes! Who else should it be? I should never have believed it, but the feeling is stronger than I. Yesterday I tormented myself and suffered, but I would not exchange even that torment for anything in the world, I have not lived till now. At last I live, but I can’t live without her! But can she love me?… I am too old for her…. Why don’t you speak?”

      “I? I? What did I tell you?” said Pierre suddenly, rising and beginning to pace up and down the room. “I always thought it…. That girl is such a treasure… she is a rare girl…. My dear friend, I entreat you, don’t philosophize, don’t doubt, marry, marry, marry…. And I am sure there will not be a happier man than you.”

      “But what of her?”

      “She loves you.”

      “Don’t talk rubbish…” said Prince Andrew, smiling and looking into Pierre’s eyes.

      “She does, I know,” Pierre cried fiercely.

      “But do listen,” returned Prince Andrew, holding him by the arm. “Do you know the condition I am in? I must talk about it to someone.”

      “Well, go on, go on. I am very glad,” said Pierre, and his face really changed, his brow became smooth, and he listened gladly to Prince Andrew. Prince Andrew seemed, and really was, quite a different, quite a new man. Where was his spleen, his contempt for life, his disillusionment? Pierre was the only person to whom he made up his mind to speak openly; and to him he told all that was in his soul. Now he boldly and lightly made plans for an extended future, said he could not sacrifice his own happiness to his father’s caprice, and spoke of how he would either make his father consent to this marriage and love her, or would do without his consent; then he marveled at the feeling that had mastered him as at something strange, apart from and independent of himself.

      “I should not have believed anyone who told me that I was capable of such love,” said Prince Andrew. “It is not at all the same feeling that I knew in the past. The whole world is now for me divided into two halves: one half is she, and there all is joy, hope, light: the other half is everything where she is not, and there is all gloom and darkness….”

      “Darkness and gloom,” reiterated Pierre: “yes, yes, I understand that.”
      “I cannot help loving the light, it is not my fault. And I am very happy! You understand me? I know you are glad for my sake.”

      “Yes, yes,” Pierre assented, looking at his friend with a touched and sad expression in his eyes. The brighter Prince Andrew’s lot appeared to him, the gloomier seemed his own.

      Prince Andrew needed his father’s consent to his marriage, and to obtain this he started for the country next day.

      His father received his son’s communication with external composure, but inward wrath. He could not comprehend how anyone could wish to alter his life or introduce anything new into it, when his own life was already ending. “If only they would let me end my days as I want to,” thought the old man, “then they might do as they please.” With his son, however, he employed the diplomacy he reserved for important occasions and, adopting a quiet tone, discussed the whole matter.

      In the first place the marriage was not a brilliant one as regards birth, wealth, or rank. Secondly, Prince Andrew was no longer as young as he had been and his health was poor (the old man laid special stress on this), while she was very young. Thirdly, he had a son whom it would be a pity to entrust to a chit of a girl. “Fourthly and finally,” the father said, looking ironically at his son, “I beg you to put it off for a year: go abroad, take a cure, look out as you wanted to for a German tutor for Prince Nicholas. Then if your love or passion or obstinacy- as you please- is still as great, marry! And that’s my last word on it. Mind, the last…” concluded the prince, in a tone which showed that nothing would make him alter his decision.

      Prince Andrew saw clearly that the old man hoped that his feelings, or his fiancee’s, would not stand a year’s test, or that he (the old prince himself) would die before then, and he decided to conform to his father’s wish- to propose, and postpone the wedding for a year.

      Three weeks after the last evening he had spent with the Rostovs, Prince Andrew returned to Petersburg.

      Next day after her talk with her mother Natasha expected Bolkonski all day, but he did not come. On the second and third day it was the same. Pierre did not come either and Natasha, not knowing that Prince Andrew had gone to see his father, could not explain his absence to herself.
      Three weeks passed in this way. Natasha had no desire to go out anywhere and wandered from room to room like a shadow, idle and listless; she wept secretly at night and did not go to her mother in the evenings. She blushed continually and was irritable. It seemed to her that everybody knew about her disappointment and was laughing at her and pitying her. Strong as was her inward grief, this wound to her vanity intensified her misery.

      Once she came to her mother, tried to say something, and suddenly began to cry. Her tears were those of an offended child who does not know why it is being punished.

      The countess began to soothe Natasha, who after first listening to her mother’s words, suddenly interrupted her:

      “Leave off, Mamma! I don’t think, and don’t want to think about it! He just came and then left off, left off…”

      Her voice trembled, and she again nearly cried, but recovered and went on quietly:

      “And I don’t at all want to get married. And I am afraid of him; I have now become quite calm, quite calm.”

      • Percy Gryce

        You took the response right out of my keyboard.

      • Zacra

        Well played. Still, I wanted to post my thoughts, so post my thoughts is what I did.

        • Percy Gryce

          As a guy named William Shakesman once said, “Brevity is the soul of wit.”

        • war and peace

          It’s not about you per se .Your comment was just the first that came to attention as an example of wall of text.

    • http://www.facebook.com/griffin.bain Griffin Bain

      I also personally thought that the dilemma that Kirk faced of who to trust at the point where he was given two conflicting stories (one from Khan and one from Admiral Robocop) was interesting, definitely more interesting than anything in the 2009 film.

  • http://profiles.google.com/charlesp2009 Charles Petrosky

    I enjoyed a lot of what “Into Darkness” offered. It’s certainly not perfect but I feel it’s a better film than #1. The characters feel more familiar and the story moves at a better pace. The mission at the beginning was fun and it was nice to see a planet that was actually alien while maintaining some of that 60s feel. Some of the references and gags in the film were very enjoyable. That being said however I think ripping the 5 minute death scene straight from Wrath of Khan was a mistake. They wanted to do an homage but it came off as lazy.

    Is “Into Darkness” a smart film? No. At times it’s a lot more intelligent than #1 but unfortunately I kept questioning the actions of high ranking officers in this movie. Kirk is still an idiot and ill-equipped to command a starship. He’s definitely smarter than Archer though (and UGH, according to these Abram’s films Star Trek: Enterprise is the only canon in this alternate universe!).

    The writers think the audience is stupid! (Or maybe the writers are just simpletons?) Kirk and co. are rushed off on a risky and illicit mission to murder a man without giving him a trial while using untested and suspicious weapons. Allegory much? I hope people in charge of starships and the organization commanding them aren’t so daft in the 23rd century. Where’s Captain Picard to put on the brakes and think about the situation?

    Ah well, still a mostly enjoyable film. The Trek fan in me was often questioning the logic in the film (and if one thinks about it for 5 minutes lots of the plot falls apart). In terms of the whole Trek canon this movie is pretty weak. As a big summer movie though it’s pretty good, better than most.

    • http://www.facebook.com/griffin.bain Griffin Bain

      That one still has the problem with the plot making no sense and the characters being reduced to cartoons though.

  • Percy Gryce

    The best thing to be said about Star Trek Into Darkness is that Star Fleet now has hats.

  • Percy Gryce

    Star Trek Into Darkness, first half = Stardate Zero Dark Thirty.

    Star Trek Into Darkness, second half = Bad Robot’s remake of Wrath of Kahn.

    • http://www.facebook.com/griffin.bain Griffin Bain

      It was kinda the original three Star Trek films smashed together.

  • http://twitter.com/AnnPeek Ann Peek

    Needed more Chekov.

  • Jorge Locas

    They forgot to mention the other (there are like 10) stupidity of the opening. Why hide a SPACE ship in the ocean when it’s much harder to see into SPACE.

    Like, out of all the writers who wrote that scene, NOBODY asked “isn’t Enterprise a SPACE ship and these people are so primitive they have no telescopes? Why don’t they hide it in SPACE where SPACE ships are meant to be?”

    • http://profiles.google.com/charlesp2009 Charles Petrosky

      Looking at their temple they may very well have an understanding astronomy similar to the Mayans. In that case they might notice and react to a “new star” orbiting their planet. Especially if it parked above their temple in a geostationary orbit.

      But in that case all the Enterprise need to do is park on the opposite side of the planet and send their shuttle down. Ultimately they did it because it was kewl and hadn’t really been done in Star Trek before.

    • http://www.facebook.com/griffin.bain Griffin Bain

      So they could have a cool sequence where the ship takes off out of the water.

    • or pick a name

      They did it because it was something new, and looked cool. Was stupid, but the whole movie was like that, so…
      As for the scene with the water itself – where the fuck was STEAM? Starship engines are not exactly cold.

    • Lindeloser

      Or hell, if they needed to be close to the volcano, just have it floating over a cloud.

  • Percy Gryce

    “I didn’t even know Tribbles had human blood.”

  • Percy Gryce

    Jay’s reaction to Mike’s guffaw confirms my suspicion that Mike doesn’t laugh enough. #tearsofaclown

  • JAGUART

    Rich Evans needs more fireside chats with us.

    • Paul Schumann

      agreed. he must assail us with his wisdom

      • Percy Gryce

        And flail us with his wit, wot, wot?

      • Mads Bolding Fenger Poulsen

        And his laughter

    • SkyDog

      I love it when he joins in the discussions, he’s an articulate man and the three are really relaxed with eachother. It’s a great dynamic.

      Thooough, maybe he could be a little less boozed next time :)

  • Osbor

    the scenes with the warp core were actually filmed at the laser fusion focal point of NIF, hence why it looks so “realistic” and “gritty”…because it’s an actual place.

  • http://www.facebook.com/griffin.bain Griffin Bain

    It’s odd to me that you guys enjoyed the 2009 film so much and seemed to dislike this one. To me, it had most of (if not all of) the same problems regarding plot inconsistencies and ‘things you just have to go with’, so to speak, but was a better and more memorable movie overall.

    • http://www.facebook.com/griffin.bain Griffin Bain

      Also, complaining about Spock supposedly having no emotions and yet regularly showing his emotions at even the flimsiest excuse is strange to me because the original series did that constantly.

      • disqus_kmv6XEt4Jn

        Not only that, but Quinto Spock saw his home planet destroyed and his species nearly extirpated. He saw his mother killed right in front of his eyes.
        Nimoy Spock always had Vulcan to ground him, as we saw, for example, in the Motion Picture, where he could go and meditate on logic. Quinto Spock doesn’t have that. I expect him to be a lot more emotion-filled and angsty, and for a great deal of his character arc to deal with those turbulent emotions with which he’s trying to come to terms.

      • http://www.facebook.com/aramknives Aram Knives

        Star Trek I to VI, Spock showed emotion in maybe… one of them?

  • C’mon

    This is dump.
    You don’t have to be a crazy conspiracy theorist to know that 9/11 was an inside job.

    • dellaroccokc

      Yeah just crazy

  • Meester Smeeth

    Hasn’t anyone blamed Damon Lindelof for this yet?

    • Percy Gryce

      Check the comments.

  • Brandon

    All of this talk is boring “I didn’t get it, so it must be stupid” crap, with a couple of good points, and a whole lot of flat out refusals to even think about what’s going on. For example: Despite the fact that yes Khan did put the people inside the missiles to smuggle them, Admiral Marcus also knew there were people inside the missiles – not only does Khan say so, but the point was to kill Khan with them on Kronos, that way they’d all be killed in the process of starting a war with the Klingons. Khan giving himself up was to prevent all of that from happening.

    You can’t deduce things for yourself?
    Khan didn’t ‘stand around a hospital’, stalking sick kids. Let’s say he investigates the employees of Sector 31, and discovers one he can take advantage of. (Maybe having advanced knowledge of the computer systems helped). Or maybe he poisoned the kid himself. He could’ve remembered an employee who wasn’t as keen on him. The reason Khan had that guy plant the bomb (instead of doing it himself) was because he doesn’t have clearance to enter the building anymore. Is that so hard? Did you need a whole other movie explaining it, or what? I thought you guys *didn’t* want the filmmakers to treat you like idiots.

    And seriously, is all of this hipster bashing supposed to be self deprecating? You have seen your other show right? The one were you watch bad VHS movies ironically… I usually like your stuff, but I feel like I’m watching Mystery Asshole Theater here.

    • dannydoodah

      I agree that it seemed they totally missed the details of the movie. I am not saying the movie makes rock solid sense. In fact, played straight the entire movie hinged on the fact sulu mentioned the total number of torpedoes in his speech to harrison. Had he just said, we will fire torpedoes on your location then the entire movie would have played out totally differently.

      I was also really really surprised they did not pick up on the fact that this is a revenge movie without the revenge. The movie continues the allegory to 9/11 that the first movie represented, and shows a just society reacting in the wake of a tragedy on a scale beyond their previous comprehension. It is the choice we faced post 9/11 and we chose not to question the wmd story, we chose to act without proof of a connection between 9/11 and iraq, we chose and continue to choose to do the easy thing, like bombing random people with drones or locking them away without trial rather than finding out if they are guilty. We took the easy route, we went into darkness.

      In this movie, kirk’s father figure dies. He reacts on his gut, he wants to hunt harrison down, he wants him dead, so much so that he would fire his chief engineer for coming between him and that vengeance. He is even given an exceptionally easy way to do it via these drones, i mean long range torpedoes, but thanks to Spocks influence, he chooses the harder path, to bring harrison in to stand trial, and risk his life and the lives of his senior staff doing so. Deep down kirk wants harrison dead, hell , it is not even deep down, he literally cannot contain himself from trying to beat harrison to death when he actually meets him face to face. Pike meant a lot to him, and his slip and attempt to beat harrison to a pulp was a great way to stop kirk coming off like a goody two shoes for taking the moral path.

      Is the movie perfect, hell no , not by a long stretch. But neither is this review. Between the three of you you got a bunch of the details remembered incorrectly, and that means the foundation on which a lot of your comments are made are literally not about the movie they actually watched.

      • chris moll

        In the review they talk about how in the classic show and the TNG series about how many of the shows were about ethical decisions, yet they totally forgot about how that was such a major plot point. Not just murdering terrorists without a trial (like the us is now doing). Kirk had to make the ethical, non-revengeful, non villainous decision to apprehend the suspect. And then in the end Spock had to spare Kahn as well. Kirk and Spock both had to grow as character and learn from each other deepening their bond. Also Spock Prime couldn’t give a history lesson about Kahn because it is an altered timeline, HOWEVER he could warn Spock about Kahn’s evil ways, power, and formidable nature. Remember the enterprise crew was still trying to figure out Kahn’s motivation.

        • Steve

          Let’s get one thing straight. Terrorists who are killed in combat on the battlefield are not being “murdered without trial.” They are entering into combat with military forces that operate under the rules of engagement which prohibit them from firing first. Those held in locations like Guantanamo Bay are nearly entirely men who were captured on the battlefield. They are not treated like soldiers OR criminals for the simple fact that the very complex threat they face does not allow them to be classified as such. They are non-uniformed, militant combatants. With a very intense, unbreakable, ideology That makes them very hard to fight.

          Not to mention the fact that we have had literally dozens of movies since the wars started that were critical of our own government’s policies. There’s plenty to be critical of. Legislation like Bush’s The Patriot Act or Obama’s excessive and careless use of drones.

          Here’s an idea. How about a Star Trek story that was brave that actually dealt with the general intolerance of religion? Like the radicalization of Muslim terrorists, or the bigotry and hatred shown by many religions towards gays? How about something that hasn’t been done to death a BILLION times? You’d be able to have all your terrorist stuff, but actually do something that could speak to reason on many issues we face today. Not something we all already know a million times over. Yes, we all get it. Bush was a bad president who sent us to war under false pretenses Can we get something not so tired?

          Third, they didn’t need Nimoy at all to figure out Khan was a bad guy. Khan killed a whole bunch of people in cold blood. The only reason Nimoy was in the film was for fan service, and it shows. They knew he was guilty, they had security footage and eye witnesses placing him at the scene of both attacks. There was no doubt that Khan was a dangerous man. They didn’t need Nimoy to come on screen and go “Yeah, NuSpock, Khan is totally a bad guy.”

      • meme

        I love your comments, they are so true. But, Sulu did not say we have 72 torpedoes. he just said i will fire torpedoes on you. Khan, knowing that he is the only one who made torpedoes undetectable in Klingon air space and what he put in there, asked Kirk, Spock and Uhura HOW MANY. they told him 72. he deducted these must be his people, as there are 72 of them and as he understands Marcus’ MO.

    • http://www.facebook.com/aramknives Aram Knives

      So wait… then why did Khan go to Kronos?

      • indy42

        Because Starfleet can’t go there.

        • Steve

          … Why? Because the entire rest of the movie doesn’t bare that out. Starfleet, the Enterprise, did go there. Rather easily. This is damn near like Star Trek 5 where nobody had ever gone through The Great Barrier, and all this hype…. And then the Enterprise just does it within a minute or so. No big deal.

    • stupid kid

      “I usually like your stuff, but I didn’t like this one video/your opinions, so now you’re all assholes.”

      What are you, 15 years old?

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=599459594 Michael Little

        They’ve always been assholes and stupid. It just took you fanboy’s five or six years to figure it out. THEY HATE POPULAR FILMS. They are hipster nerds.

      • Brandon

        You should learn some reading comprehension skills before you comment, little boy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/luke.altomare.1 Luke Altomare

    At 26:29 it looks like Mike starts jerkin’ it under the table.

  • Sean Lombard

    I understand and agree with pretty much all the critiques in this HitB, but I still liked this movie. It was fan service, it was basically fan fiction, and it was a far inferior rehash or WoK. However, I’m so starved for Trek that I would take this over nothing. I knew what I was getting myself into before I sat down, so I wasn’t disappointed. Except for Spock’s “KHAAAAN”. That was awful.

    I absolutely wish that we could have the deeper, more philosophical Trek of old instead of this redundant revenge action stuff, but I understand that general audiences don’t have the intelligence or attention span to sit through something like that anymore. I’ll continue to support the franchise in the hopes that it gets back on TV where it belongs.

    • Alex Lee

      Watch Vic Mignoga’s “Pilgrim of Eternity” for real Star Trek. The differences between Abrams’ Trek and his are massive.

  • Naes

    Why is Kahn a white guy? Did Starfleet give him plastic surgery? If so, why? I understand that this is a “new” universe but only as it relates to the destruction of Vulcan onward. There’s no reason Kahn who was frozen 300 years prior shouldn’t be a swarthy Sikh with glistening pecks.

    • http://profiles.google.com/charlesp2009 Charles Petrosky

      Because Benedict Cabbagepatch is hot stuff in Hollywood and on TV right now.

      Besides, if they cast someone from another ethnicity as the bad guy people would cry foul about the “racism” of a non-white villian. You can’t win no matter what you do!

      • Naes

        Then get a white guy and have him play a non-white! Paint him brown. Problem solved. Oh wait…

      • Steve

        I say air on the side of not succumbing to the intellectual suicide that is political correctness.

    • indy42

      Or, you know, a Mexican guy.

    • phil

      Because they failed to sign Benicio del Toro.

  • JAGUART

    Damon Lindelof is the new George Lucas.

    • Percy Gryce

      That’s an insult to Jorge. I mean, where’s Lindelof’s New Hope, Empire, or Raiders?

      • sepiajack

        His are LOST seasons 1,2,3 and 4

  • sanchez

    As somebody with a degree in physics, that cold fusion thing really hurt. Out of all the crap that comes out these days, why is it only in the new star trek movies that the use of science terms kills the suspension of disbelief?

    • http://profiles.google.com/charlesp2009 Charles Petrosky

      I was regularly annoyed that Janeway and her crew had difficulty finding deuterium (hydrogen). Any attempt at real science went out the window in the mid 90s. They think the audience is stupid.

      • sanchez

        True. The cringe factor of Voyager was off the scale.

    • Zacra

      I loved the movie, but yeah, the cold fusion thing was stupid.

    • or pick a name

      Because science is magic. For an average (especially American) moviegoer at least.

      • Steve

        But see, even as Chris Evans pointed out. You could have easily made up a BS device called a “Cryonifier” or something and not shat on established science. It would have been soley to the benefit of the movie. You wouldn’t piss off the people who know science, might even get a few of them interested in running some thought experiments, like old Star Trek used to do when it was still good, and for the average movie goer it makes no difference anyway. So why not right upwards and not downards? Eh…

        Take the Next Gen guys for example. Scientists pretty much concluded that a transporter just wouldn’t be feasible in reality. One of the biggest reasons was because of the complexity of tracking every particle of a person’s body. So within the Trek universe they added in some BS science called a “Heisenberg compensator.” Literally one line of dialogue. feasible

    • Craig

      …I just had to reply to this.
      Star Trek is a franchise with FTL travel, laser guns, teleportation, time travel, multiple dimensions, aliens, telepathy, wormholes, replicators, shapeshifters, plasma coils, plasma cannon, warp drives, insane technobabble BUT APPARENTLY misusing the term ‘cold fusion’ is going too far into the realm of implausibility.

      • Alex Lee

        It’s one thing to mess around with fictional stuff. It’s an entirely different thing when they flub up real terms, especially with their Hollywood budget, smartphones, and Wikipedia. It reeks of lazy writing and it was the canary in the coalmine for this movie.

  • Toxi Kane

    I thank you for letting me know that I am not crazy for hating this movie. I just wanted to throw things at the screen the entire movie. I don’t think the acting ever lived up to the characters that I know and love. This movie cared more about special effects than a story that made sense. I love your review but I thought you guys were a little too kind. I hate that I wasted my money to see this in IMAX 3D

    • IMAX is dead

      You’re automatically wasting your money at an IMAX, unless you’re at one of the few remaining theaters that can show IMAX film and not digital LIEMAX.

  • http://www.facebook.com/luke.altomare.1 Luke Altomare

    I think that’s the first time I’ve heard Mike’s actual laugh. It was terrifying….

  • howard

    Being a Star Trek fan (all series/movies), I really enjoyed this movie. It was fun and felt like an old episode for the most part. I don’t agree with Mike, Jay, and Rich on this one.

    I think sometimes they get their shows mixed up… this isn’t Best of the Worst!!! :)
    -howard

  • http://profiles.google.com/charlesp2009 Charles Petrosky

    I’m glad Rich mentioned that the last 3 Star Trek movies IN A ROW have had big evil-looking starships with lots of powerful weapons. I certainly hope the next film is something different!

    • Saltonstall

      Even Insurrection had that weird Collector ship that Picard fought the face-stretchy guy on

      • http://www.sunnystrangers.blogspot.com/ Bryan M. White

        That’s not even remotely close to an example of the same kind of thing.

        • Saltonstall

          It’s technically a big, evil looking spacecraft designed to do… something. I don’t know, I don’t really remember Insurrection. Its forgettability is arguably its greatest strength, as I can’t say a single negative (or positive) thing about it. Nemesis, on the other hand… oh boy.

          • http://www.sunnystrangers.blogspot.com/ Bryan M. White

            It was a device to collect the “metaphasic energy” from the planet’s rings. It wasn’t even a ship. It was “evil looking” only in the sense that it belonged to the villians. And “designed to do…something” pretty much covers the entire field of technology itself. It WAS pretty big, I guess. I’ll give you that one.

            So, basically, the only similarity between it and the massive warships in Nemesis, ST ’09, and ST:ID, is that it’s a was “a big thing in space.”, and the fact that a Star Trek movie featured a big thing in space is hardly remarkable. It would be like if the last three movies had a red-face villain with horns and then you came along and said, “Hey, Insurrection has somebody with a face in it too!”

            In other words, you got nothing, friend.

          • Percy Gryce

            Actually, the collector ship’s actions were going to destroy the Baku’s planet–which was the central element of the plot–so I think Saltonstall is on to something.

          • http://www.sunnystrangers.blogspot.com/ Bryan M. White

            Ohhhh, so that bad guys were trying to do something that would hurt people! Well that makes it a lot more specific. Why didn’t I see it before!?

            Look, the examples from the other three movie were giant hulking prototype warships that had the Enterprise completely outgunned. That is the common denominator between them. The collector in Insurrection wasn’t a ship and it wasn’t even armed with weapons. The fact that they were trying to destroy a planet by some sort of convoluted sci-fi process only really connects it to ST 09′. It doesn’t make it common to all three examples (Yes, I know that the other movies had villains who were planning to attack Earth, but once you start throwing things like that into the mix you might as well include nearly every other Star Trek movie. A big thing that threatens to destroy a planet? V’ger? Genesis? The big humpback cigar space whale?)

            No, we’re talking about a huge prototype warship that has the Enterprise outgunned. That’s the common element. The collector is none of those things. It just isn’t. Pointing out other incidental things that it might have in common with the warships “Errr, they all had pointy things on them.” isn’t going to change that.

            Give it a rest.

    • or pick a name

      I like the fact how they’ve noticed how shallow Khan in this movie is, or the fact that in the Wrath of Khan he had an inferior starship… In that movie he got the upper hand only because he attacked Enterpise from an ambush in close distance. How would Into Darkness handle this? Probably put Khaaaaaan into a space suit and let him beat the exterior of the Enterprise…

  • Naes

    Do you think the “72″ pod-people is a ham-handed reference to the 72 virgins that terrorists think they get? Why 72?

    • Niv

      Because in the original Khan episode “Space Seed”, there were 72 survivors on Khan’s ship. It’s a direct reference to his original origin story.

  • Unreliant

    Wow, first time I completely and utterly disagree with you guys. I liked it so much that your review doesn’t even bother me :)

    • Naes

      So if you disagree with another’s opinion, your solution is boycott? Sounds healthy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ben.brian.56 Ben Brian

    I’ve known of Benedict Cumberbatch for years. Granted it is only 2 and I am British but the point is… I forget.

  • Chris Moll

    They had to use Kann’s blood to heal Kirk because if you remember earlier in the film Bones said that they couldn’t defrost the other cryo-tubes because he “didn’t have the proper sequencing”

    • poparistocrat

      I thought about that too, but then they take one of the guys out of a cryotube to put Kirk into it until they get Khan’s blood.

  • Alex Bullock

    I love that Rich knows the name of Khan’s ship right off the top of his head. He didn’t even have to think about it.

    • Alex

      … if you’re even a MODERATE Star Trek fan that’s not the slightest bit impressive… just to give you some perspective.

      • Alex Bullock

        I’ve seen that movie ~5 times but if someone asked me what the name of Kahn”s ship is I would know but not right off my head.

        • Steve

          You’ve seen TWOK five times? Psh, that’s nothing. Here’s a fun piece of trivia for you, though. Reliant was originally going to be called Avenger, but back in the 80s I guess they had more sense not to name the ship after a theme in the movie and make it so on the nose… So they changed it to Reliant. For the best I think.

  • Saren Nevac

    The annoying thing is the complete lack of originality. I thought the whole point of changing the timeline in the last movie was so they dont have the baggage of the tv series to worry out. They have the whole of the star trek universe to use to create a story yet they chose to remake ST2.

  • Sfing

    <3 HITB but feel like this one was really rushed without gathering your thoughts or something… just read all the comments to this review and you can see many people easily understood the plot of this movie and Khan's motives, as it was explained right in the movie through dialogue. Feels like you guys weren't even paying attention at the theater or something. Oh well. Here's hoping Plinkett gives this movie the send-off it deserves from RLM.

    • http://profiles.google.com/charlesp2009 Charles Petrosky

      I’m guessing they saw it only once and didn’t take notes. I’d rather this movie have gotten the Plinkett treatment!

  • http://www.sunnystrangers.blogspot.com/ Bryan M. White

    Yes. Excellent review.

    One thing I’ve noticed about the people defending this movie is that they tend to dismiss every complaint about it as “trekkie nerd rage”, and they hide behind that as an excuse for the fact that ultimately it’s just a really bad movie. It’s like when people complain about a software update and people write it off as “you just don’t like change.” Thus every legitimate complaint has to come prefeced with a tired, “I don’t mind change, but….” Likewise, every complaint about this movie has to come preface with “I’m fine with J.J. Abramas doing something new with Star Trek, but…” just to placate

    • Gary V

      Yeah, its either nerd rage, or “not nerdy enough” to get the subtle subcontext of what was really going on. Those people think lifting an entire scene from a previous moving and putting a different spin on it is somehow anything other than lazy writing.

      • http://www.sunnystrangers.blogspot.com/ Bryan M. White

        Exactly. I almost could have given the movie a pass if it wasn’t for that. It’s like they basically did a parody of that scene and then expected us to take it seriously.

        And of course there was the whole lame setup and reveal of Khan. It’s like the whole movie led up to them going, “Hey look kids, there’s Khan!”, and then it just flopped around like a fish till it was over.

      • http://www.sunnystrangers.blogspot.com/ Bryan M. White

        Exactly. I almost could have given the movie a pass if it wasn’t for that. It’s like they basically did a parody of that scene and then expected us to take it seriously.

        And of course there was the whole lame setup and reveal of Khan. It’s like the whole movie led up to them going, “Hey look kids, there’s Khan!”, and then it just flopped around like a fish till it was over.

  • Tomas P.

    Wow, looking at the comments it seems that Half in the Bag finally jumped the shark… once again.

    But seriously, don’t know what happened, but it seems that Mike, Jay and Rich really didn’t pay too much attention to a movie that doesn’t have all that much substance to follow in the first place. Of course the movie isn’t plot-hole-free all the way, but the stupid little things are minor enough to ignore, or at least not big enough to spend 2 hours discussing.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=599459594 Michael Little

      They were just trolling. Mike and Jay don’t give a shit about logic or even pay attention half the time. They just hate movies with special effects or action. They think all movies should be small, independent films about disaffected millennials on twitter.

      • Michael Little is an idiot

        I have you seen many comments from you on this site at this point, every comment nothing but bitching. If you hate these guys so much, WHY do you keep coming back here?

        Also, you’re comment makes absolutely no sense. They hate action special effects films? Since when? They liked Iron Man 3, Jack the Giant Slayer, The Avengers, and tons of other big films. Where did you get this “they only like independent films” bullshit?

        And you say that THEY’RE the ones trolling?

      • S.L.

        That’s just not true…

        They have some blind spots (Mike will always recommend some sort of sci-fi… even if it’s dumb and full of special effects like Battleship), but that’s not one of them.

      • Wes Kerfoot

        Which is why they liked Iron Man 3, Django Unchained and The Avengers? All of those are massively popular blockbusters. In fact not a single film they’ve reviewed on here is “small” or “independent”.

  • Chris Moll

    Also Kahn knew they were going to fire the missiles because Sulu told Kahn through a transmission. When he found out there were “72″ (the same number as his crew) he surrendered because he didn’t want them to die, he had an attachment to them

  • shane

    Does it bother anyone that these two Abrams films have had MASSIVE death tolls? BILLIONS of Vulcans murdered in the first and untold amounts of people killed when Khan crashed the Vengance into San Francisco? It doesn’t seem to resonate with the characters at all. But then again that seems to be a tread in films in these days. No time to contemplate, no consideration for the result of one’s actions.

    • Lemon Aidez

      Wasn’t that kind of the same thing that happened in Star Wars: A New Hope? The Death Star just destroying an entire planet and nobody mentioning it afterwards?

      • Naes

        Star Trek is supposed to be set in a time and place where people have become basically good and one would expect them to care about the death of billions. The destruction of Vulcan would be equivalent of Europe sinking into the ocean. It should be a HUGE deal but really isn’t. Star Wars is set in a universe where people are basically looking out for themselves by necessity and generally don’t concern themselves with other people’s trouble. It would make more sense that the destruction of Alderaan doesn’t matter to them.

        • meme

          the destruction of vulcan has caused the events of stid. what more do you want?

          • Steve

            That’s plotting, not character. They’re talking specifically about how the CHARACTERS don’t seem to react or care… and they really didn’t. Even Spock for all his rage never actually shed a tear for Vulcan… And we know Vulcans are somewhat telepathic. The death of so many all at once should have sent all the elders into intense grief. Some silent tears from the bridge crew would have been nice.

          • Alex Lee

            Back on ’09, Spock Prime said that he/Young Spock was deeply affected by the loss, yet Spock is still at work and not trying to preserve his race from extinction at worst and inbreeding at best. It would seem like that the destruction of Vulcan would mess with all of his actions.

            Instead, it’s his relationship with Kirk that seems to matter more than anything else.

      • Steve

        The whole end of Star Wars was based on the characters trying to prevent it from happening again with quite a bit of desperation.

  • Naes

    Why wouldn’t Admiral Robocop look at at least one of the torpedoes before deploying them against the guy who built them? Wouldn’t you want to reverse engineer them to build more? Wouldn’t you at least check that Khan didn’t put in a kill switch? Even if they explain their gross negligence, it still wouldn’t be good writing.

  • Lapan

    The references were about the only thing that kinda saved the movie for me. I also liked that they didn’t abuse Kirks death to make yet another “Search for Spock”. Another thing that helped is that i didn’t watch Wrath of Kahn in ages and thus forgot many of the old plotpoints anyways.

    Overall i prefered this over star Treck 3,9 and 10. It was an okay movie to watch, especially because someone else paid for the tickets anyways

  • Percy Gryce

    When they opened the first torpedo, I thought the guy in the tube was Mr. Data (or Lore or B-4). With all the other fan service going on in STID, why the hell not?

  • cake

    Should’ve been a Plinkett review.

  • Chris Moll

    Normally Half in the Bag i agree with, but on this one you guys got SO many of the details wrong, or remembered them wrong, or failed to see the deeper meaning, this movie was about Spock more so then Kirk like in the first film, there was excellent use of comic relief without overdoing it (the silly relationship bickering with Spock and Ohuru) Lots of great twists and role reversals. Even in the review you guys are making fun of an actors name. Cabbage patch? Come on. Thats like saying Gay and Dyke instead of Jay and Mike. and you guys thought it was the FUNNIEST thing. You guys reverted to 5th grade humor in this one. When your in “jay and mike” character and make silly scripted jokes that is part of the show, but in this case it made you seem dumber than the hipsters that you make fun of. Overall i love half in the bag, but not this one. The other bad one was the hunger games, the shittiest, most boring, most gay dystopia film EVER. And I generally really like dystopias.

    • Naes

      Listening to a couple bickering like a bad sitcom is really entertaining, especially a couple that clearly was put in so general audiences wouldn’t think Spock was gay.

      • chris moll

        They put this in so the characters would seem like real people that just happened to be in an extraordinary situation, unlike jar jar that steps in the poopie

        • Steve

          Spock and Uhura were plenty believable in the original series without a romance that, frankly, is the most inappropriate paring imaginable. How about Rand and Kirk? Or Chapel and Spock? Uhura (A much younger and junior member of the crew) with Spock? Doesn’t make sense.

  • matthias

    you guys are the best thing on the internet !

  • stolliosis

    Mike and Jay totally anticipated the reaction by those who liked the film. That is why at the beginning Plinkett says what he says. Masterful anticipation you guys. Star Trek Into Darkness had decent action and a thin story.

  • Pingback: Star Trek Into Darkness (Post-release) - Page 19

  • ohgobwhatisthis

    Yeah, you clearly weren’t paying attention to this one.

    This movie was flawed; it had some plot holes; it relies a bit too much on references, etc. But it has a lot more depth than you give it credit, purely because you don’t like that there’s an action-oriented Star Trek movie.

    If somehow you find Iron Man 3 enjoyable (personally I thought it was okay but mostly just bland action punctuated with a few clever scenes, and I did not give a single fuck about any of the characters), but somehow you nitpick the shit out of this and willingly miss every single plot point, I don’t know how you can even pretend to have not headed into this movie WANTING to write it off.

    Also, I find it funny that you’re now using a subplot to make fun of the non-existent “hipster,” when the only people “ironically” watching horrible old movies on VHS are you guys on your other show. Don’t get me wrong, I *LOVE* “Best of the Worst,” but you seem to have zero sense of self-awareness on these things.

    • Second Language

      They liked the first one. So the action-oriented thing is not realy true.

      Look… the reason why I like these guys is because they understand that things are complicated when it comes to taste… that’s why Mike spends the whole review mocking the movie but in the end he kinda recomends it… based on an action/fun perspective… but he also believes that the movie fails when it comes to other aspects.

      They didn’t miss the plot points, they thought that they appeared complicated when in fact they were kinda dumb. (I don’t know but I blame Lindelof who seems to believe that confusing = clever)

      They have issues with this notion that everything needs to fall into two categories – Awesome or Crap… there’s a whole universe in between… they praised the cast, the director, the action, the setpices… in the end they felt that it was not enough.

      And they have self-awareness… most of the time they’re just joking and playing dumb.

  • beane2099

    The movie had issues. On that I agree. But not some of the issues mentioned here. Some of those points discussed were addressed in the movie.

    Khan clearly says “I had every reason to believe that he killed my crew.” Basically Khan’s plan was to smuggle his crew onto the Vengeance (in the torpedoes) and take the ship for his own but that plan fell through. He thought his crew was dead and sought vengeance (haw). He didn’t plan for them to be put on Kirk’s ship so he could be captured. When he heard the message that said I have advanced torpedoes, he took a chance that Marcus was assy enough to fire his own crew at him and surrendered to check it out.

    Marcus knew Khan’s crew were in those torpedoes and figured he’d kill two birds with one stone (though that point still seems dumb – why not just blow up those torpedoes yourself; and did he explicitly order Kirk to fire all 72 torpedoes?).

    Also, in Space Speed (the episode with Khan) they mention that their ship was rigged to awaken Khan first and that he would awaken the rest of the crew. Hence inthis movie, only Khan was awakened.

    • chris moll

      I think they did more than just nod to the old series here, they tapped into the deeper detail and established history that hardcore fans will appreciate. This was a perfect Hollywood movie that updates a great classic series.

    • meme

      Those torpedoes were and I quote, “undetectable to Klingon air space.” They needed to be used to start the war Marcus wanted. He could have taken the popsicles out, but he wanted to be vengeful. not surprising as Khan screwed with his weapons plans, destroyed Section 31 and attacked earth. the torpedoes were going to be either detonated by the Enterprise or destroyed by the Klingons or destroyed by Marcus himself when he went after the Enterprise or killed in any attempt to defrost them. From Marcus’ point of view the risk of “what could possibly go wrong” was rather minor compared to his desire for vengeance against Khan

  • poparistocrat

    When was the last Star Trek movie that was “Star Trek”? 6 was a political metaphor, so that one, I guess. 5 was bad, 4 was fun but a silly fish out of water story, 3 was dumb, and all the TNG ones were pretty bad…

    So, the only Trek movies that were ‘Trek’ were 1 (and people tend to hate on that one, too), 2, and 6… so why do we still expect anything different?

    • Naes

      2, 4, and 6. Maybe 3. You don’t get to just discount #4 because you think it is “silly”. A lot of the classic episodes were silly but had some lesson or purpose. 1 and 5 attempted to be about something and failed for different reasons.

      • http://twitter.com/madhi19 John G

        I like one it like one long three-part TOS episode.

  • TPRJones

    I’m someone you could likely classify as a “hardcore Trekie” and I loved this movie. But I’ve been seeing this reboot in a completely different way from how everyone else seems to.

    This is not the same universe at all anymore. Recent events in this timeline have been downright brutal, with billions of people killed off. Starfleet was gutted in the first movie so badly that the only people left to fly one of the last ships to go out and deal with the problem were a bunch of half-trained academy students. And the fact that they are still on the Enterprise after the first movie can only be because there is literally no one more experienced left alive to put in there. These characters have rapidly had to go from a happy utopian world to end-of-the-world survival mode and it just keeps coming at them. They’re all fifteen years too young for what they are doing. They’re all fifteen years short of training and experience for the positions they’ve been thrust into. And they’re all coping with it rather badly.

    Of course this Spock is less subtle. He’s lost everyone he cares about outside this crew and this reboot has been a vicious psychological mindfuck for him. Kirk is not just more reckless because he’s younger, he’s more reckless because this version didn’t have the supportive and nurturing Starfleet officer father the original did and he hasn’t had ANY experience in Starfleet before this madness began. Chekov is barely 18 for god’s sake, so of course he’s hopelessly inexperienced and doesn’t even know enough to be aware that he’s so far in over his head. I have no idea why Scottie seems to be in love with an oyster.

    The point is this is very much the “gritty” reboot of Star Trek. Not just in terms of visual style and whatnot but in terms of story and character arc. This is the complete destruction of the utopian vision of Gene Roddenberry and it’s starting to border on a psychological thriller as we watch these characters unravel. In any other sci fi show when the timeline gets this fucked the focus becomes going back to set things right, but we aren’t doing that here which is unusual and interesting.

    I also enjoy all the callbacks and references, not just in the “I know what that is” sense but because in almost every case they’ve been subverted and changed in subtle or not-so-subtle ways due to the messed up timeline. The universe seems to keep trying to push the same people back together as they were in the original timeline and it just keeps going slightly wrong, like the character’s lives are caught in some sort of grotesque fun-house mirror. I like that.

    Anyway, I’m sure many people will disagree with this outlook but it sure makes the movies much more enjoyable.

    • TPRJones

      Also, I have pretty good explanations for about two-thirds of the issues brought up about the story and events of the movie. They make much more sense when looked at thought the grim lens described in the post above and if you read some pretty awful actions into what has likely happened off-screen to Khan and Admiral Robocop and other side characters before the movie begins. The other third I have barely reasonable stretched-thin explanations for if you squint at them right. I’ve already typed way too much here so I won’t go into details, but whenever the next movie comes out keep this dark analysis in mind and it will probably come together better for you.

    • Kevin

      The darkest timeline….

    • MeMe

      This is a very well articulate description of the lens through which these movies ought to be viewed. seriously. It is also completely in line with the times within which each version was ACTUALLY written. and like TPR Jones, I have a ton of explanations for some of these alleged plot holes. And, also, when there is merely another plausible direction a character could have taken, it does not a plot hole make. It is all explainable, with only a small number of weak choice. But, I have learned not to bother. People do not want to say or accept that they may have missed something on their first watch and they certain do not like being told that they were wrong on their factual assessment of the movie.

    • S.L.

      Look… you are not wrong… but that can also be an excuse for lazy writing.

      But I would realy like to see the version of Star Trek that you described… I just don’t feel like this was it.

      • TPRJones

        It’s true. I admit that it is very likely that Abrams has accidentally stumbled on this version of the timeline. It is probably not on purpose that these twisted echos of the prior timeline are practically mocking their increasingly desperate situation.

        But it just works so well. And I bet it will continue to work if there are more movies in the future, because it seems Abrams is not happy until many many unnamed characters are dead.

  • anon

    I really liked the movie, but the more I think about it I realize it’s only really because of Blunderbuss Cummberbund as Khan and his interactions with the other characters. Nothing else was really great. You could say he made the movie.

  • manofsteel32

    REDLETTERMEDIA ARE JUST A PACK OF MARVELITE SCUMBAG DICKHEADS. ITS OBVIOUS THEY ARE DISSING STR TREK TO PROP UP MARVELS SHITTY MOVIES. HOPE YOU HACKS ENJOY YOUR DISNEY PAY CHECKS.

    • Naes

      Yes because they loved Captain America.

      • Daniel Bakke

        Or Thor…

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=599459594 Michael Little

          They liked Thor.

          • Percy Gryce

            Dutch angles and all?

  • Percy Gryce

    Mike & Jay are also men of integrity. Both Damon Lindelof and Simon Pegg were big promoters of the Plinkett Episode 1 review. RLM gained a lot of cred from their endorsements. That didn’t stop Mike & Jay from panning STID. Bravo, I say, here, here.

  • Pa Kent Says Maybe

    I’m so tired of the “The old Star Trek / Batman / Superman / Alien / Star Wars / Spider-Man / Brady Bunch / what-defuck-ever still exists, so it’s alright to have this crap too” argument.

    This generation has got its head stuck so firmly inside its own colon, seeing everything from the advantage of a bored, oh we’ve been there, let’s skew younger, effects are so much better, blah-blah-blah point-of-view. They’ve already experienced the good stuff, so they don’t give a s#!t. However, the world is full of people younger than you, foreign to your experiences, for whom this will be THE version. They deserve better, and the thing deserves better.

    How could you possibly be a fan of something, see it rebooted in some kind of semi-coherent, name-only, “‘splosey” imitation and say, “Oh well – ‘sall good”?

    Somebody explain it to me. Use big words, because I want to see if you know any.

    • TPRJones

      I love it because it’s a brilliantly subversive degeneration of the utopian vision of Gene Roddenberry into a study of the struggle to survive in a universe suddenly gone completely ass over teakettle. This is not Star Trek, this is the enantiodromia of Star Trek.

      I explain it with fewer big words about four posts or so down. I enjoy it because I’m one of those people that just want to see the world burn, and in this timeline the conflagration is getting outrageous.

      Yet even in the face of that madness these people remain so naively optimistic that at the end they are sending Earth’s only real defense off on a five-year deep space exploration mission. It’s almost charming how hard they continue to try to cling to normalcy.

      • Pa Kent Says Maybe

        So, you enjoy it because it’s the opposite of what’s it’s supposed to be?
        I guess that’s a sort of enjoyment of something, and I thank you for your honesty and self-awareness.

        Everybody else seems to be unaware of the absolute contradiction implied by championing something as “new” which is entirely dependent on an understanding and acceptance of the “old.”

        Get my meaning?

        • Steve

          I understand where the rebellion against Roddenberry’s ideals come from. At times they are actually quite… Naive. They are simple, though, and that’s the biggest problem for some people.

          Honestly i’d love to see a true-blue Star Trek. I just watched “The Cage” again the other night. Man, I would love to see Trek in the 21st Century with something resembling a brain, heart, and soul, again.

    • chris moll

      Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they get it wrong. Star Trek got it right, Total Recall got it wrong

  • ChrisBen

    I thought the movie was entertaining, but I have to agree regarding the plot in general. For example, the twist with the torpedoes wasn’t very well thought out on anyone’s part. Also, regarding the ethics bit near the end, I remember the movie tried to touch on it *briefly* at the beginning, where they were debating using the long range torpedoes. Their 5 second debate basically felt like an allusion to drones.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=599459594 Michael Little

    Too bad all of the old Star Trek movies were shit and so was the original TV SHOW with awful acting, horrible production values, and silly plots. It was a lot like Red Letter Media’s films in that regard. The first time Star Trek was even remotely interesting was Next Generation.

    • Kevin

      You’re so bad-ass.

    • adaMAntiumSpoon

      Let’s all acknowledge you. That’s what you want, right. Hurray, you exist. Now, move along please.

    • Percy Gryce

      Rich Evans, is that you?

    • f*cknose

      Oh, come on everyone:

      “all of the old Star Trek movies were shit”

      just ignore this troll

  • Poopypantiedoodleday

    KHan didnt put his crew members in those missiles if I remember correctly…It was Marcus who did that so they would kill off his crew members and then draw the attention of the klingons and get killed. Khan surrendered cuz he figured out that fact when they said 72 missiles. Can anyone confirm this pls?

    • Steve B.

      The way I remember it is that Khan did originally smuggle his crew members in the missiles, but Admiral Robocop found them and planned to use the missiles in order to dispose of Khan’s crew. That said, there’s really no way to make too much sense of the plot. If Admiral Robocop wanted to murder 72 people in cryogenic tubes, why didn’t he just dump them into space or something? He could have literally done anything with them.

      I mean, Bones didn’t even know if he would be able to thaw them out from their obsolete cryotubes without killing them. It would literally be more difficult to wake them up than it would be to kill them, so why the stupid plot?

    • PegasusFantasy

      yed he did

  • Pingback: Sub-Text Into Darkness - Look! It Moves! by Adi Tantimedh - Page 7

  • Memoman

    This site has reached a level of fame that catapults it beyond any hope of finding traces of intelligence in its comments section.

    • link

      Yeah the comments section under their videos has turned to absolute shit lately. It’s unfortunate. How do these insightful, humble gentlemen attract such utter imbeciles?

      • Tommy_Wiseau

        Because lots of people misunderstand what the RLM boys do.

  • http://www.pewpewpew.de/ reeft

    Was Rich really a professional reviewer?

    • Percy Gryce

      Only in between his gigs as a male model.

  • adaMAntiumSpoon

    This show is like crack. I got my fix now, but the next week+ is going to be torture!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=599459594 Michael Little

    Red Letter Media shtick in a nutshell.

    Mike: Good movies have heart and no plot holes.

    Jay: No, good movies are about disaffected millennials exploring their lives.

    Mike: I don’t like movies with action or special effects.

    Jay: I don’t like movies with big budgets…except if Paul Thomas Anderson makes them.

    Mike: I only really like artsy movies but I hate hipsters.

    Jay: Hipsters are so annoying. Now, can we please go watch some indie films?

    Mike: No, I would rather sit here, gain a few more pounds, and talk about how I hate all Star Trek and Star Wars movies.

    Jay: Meh. I would rather talk about the Tree of Life. Or something experimental.

    Mike: No, we should talk about Iron Man 3…now that was a good movie.

    Jay: Yeah, it was deep and that twist with Ben Kingsley was brilliant.

    Mike: I like how there are no special effects in the movie.

    Jay: Yeah, it was pretty intellectual and daring, plus there were NO plot holes.

    Mike: I don’t like it when people talk about plot holes. Now let’s talk about plot holes in this stupid Star Trek action movie.

    Jay: The character development was nowhere near as good as Hunger Games.

    Mike: That was a good movie because it didn’t have a lot of special effects.

    Jay: Special effects just distract from character development and heart.

    Mike: JJ Abrams is the new George Lucas. I can’t wait to talk about plot holes in the New Star Wars movies.

    Jay: I just realized I’m a little asshole gremlin with a terrible beard.

    Mike: No, you are a hipster. Obsessed with plot holes.

    Jay: I never liked Star Trek…but I have seen enough of it to know it isn’t about being entertained…it is supposed to bore you…like a math class.

    Mike: Entertaining and sci-fi don’t go together. Only the Michael Bay movies like entertaining sci-fi.

    Jay: Yeah, I like watching boring movies…because at least they don’t have plot holes. Films are about logic. Everything has to make perfect sense or I just can’t watch the damn things.

    Mike: Yeah, overanalyzing the logic of every scene is what movies are all about.

    • Michael Little is an idiot

      “I hate this website so much that I keep coming back week after week to post in every comments section how much I hate this website.”

      You’re so cool, bro.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=599459594 Michael Little

        Thanks fanboy. Enjoy the taste of Red Letter Media’s semen in your mouth, fanboy.

        • Little Michael

          How am I a fanboy? I enjoy what they do, yes. Sometimes I agree with their opinions, sometimes I don’t. Either way, I don’t obsessively comment about them as you appear to do.

          Again, if you hate these guys so much, WHY are you leaving comments on their videos all the time? Considering that you seem to take real issue with how much they complain about things, I can’t image the irony of what you’re doing is not lost on you.

        • Snarky

          Of course he’s a fan, why would anyone keep coming here over and over again if they weren’t a fan. You would have to be some kind of weird, self hating, stupid fuck to do that.

    • chris moll

      The hunger games has such god awful special effects, so cheesy, felt like i was watching cartoon wolves at the end. Now i actually love dystopias typically, and I knew nothing of the hunger games books and never saw any harry potter movies, so all i had was the idea that since i like dystopias i might like this. Boy was i wrong. It was like the queer version of the running man with extra rainbows.

    • Cloppity clop

      Mike and Jay are such annoying assholes. Always on about how awesome shit like the Tree of Life and Melancholia are and hating everything that’s a CGI action film. I especially love when they talk shit about the summers most recent CGI driven action movie and then recommend terrible CGI driven action movies like Battleship. Fucking hipster assholes.

      • nope

        “Mike and Jay are assholes for shitting on CGI action films. They also suck for recommending CGI action films.”

        What a confusing attempt at a complaint. How is this website attracting so many dumb assholes all of a sudden?

        • Cloppity clop

          It’s confusing because I’m contradicting myself.

          • nope

            Ooooh, you were doing a thing. I apologize for not picking up on your sarcasm. It was SO CLOSE to the asshole OP’s actual logic that I couldn’t tell reality from parody!

          • Cloppity clop

            No worries lol. I figured it wouldn’t be very easy to read. In retrospect I probably should’ve made it easier. I just couldn’t resist parodying him as best I could.

    • Percy Gryce

      They don’t hate all the Star Wars movies. Mike said he loves Empire so much that he would fuck it.

  • Scott

    This movie left me with such a staggeringly ambivalent feeling, and now, alas, this review has exacerbated my dilemma. Unless, it were an out-and-out joke at the tail-end of the review, I think I feel akin to Mike, in that, yes, it’s dumb, yes, it has gigantic plot holes, yes, the characters don’t quite jive with their original sixties counterparts, but, it’s difficult for me not to say “yeah, yeah, I kinda liked it.” In reading the responses to this critique, I can’t help but feel, simultaneously, a member of both camps. I feel dumb for liking this moving, and I feel like a complete elitist asshole for picking it apart. I think that my love of the original series is affecting my thoughts on this film. If I were in Jay’s position, essentially going in cold, I probably would be much more critical of the film, but, it’s Kirk (albeit a rather distorted one), and it’s Spock (albeit an incredibly simplified one), and it’s McCoy (albeit a criminally underused one), and it’s the Enterprise (okay, okay, the new Enterprise is pretty cool), and in my nerd brain and heart, it’s difficult for me to hate this movie. It’s a shame we’ll never have actual Star Trek ever again, so this will have to suffice.

  • Michael Houser

    Couldn’t old crusty Spock have told young gay hot Spock that Khan doesn’t know how to fight in 3 dimensional space?

  • jarl

    I found a plot hole in your review, at 25:00 mike call Rich by his name while he previously stated he didn’t know him…

  • Andrew

    I’d love for you guys to listen to Alex Navarro and Matt Rorie’s recent podcast…their opinions of recent movies are fairly different from you guys. I guess it’s premium but it’s interesting to see the contrast in opinions. http://www.giantbomb.com/podcasts/premium/

  • Richter Belmont

    Oh no, many of the comments state that Half in the Bag are wrong about this movie. Surely they must be wrong then!

    NOPE!

    I’m not saying they’re right either, I agree on some things, but disagree on other stuff regarding this movie. The majority isn’t always right, people need to think for themselves rather than just read the comments or say what some other guy has stated without forming your own opinion.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=599459594 Michael Little

      Uninformed and stupid opinions are never welcome. Let’s face it, we all knew these douchebags were going to hate the new Star Trek movie. It could have been a masterpiece and they would have panned it. They take the generic Internet consensus on most movies. If they truly hated plot holes, bad writing, and CGI driven blockbusters, they would have panned Avengers.

      • Richter Belmont

        Oh, its you. You still visiting the site? If all you do is bitch about the RLM or Half in the Bag episodes, then why don’t you do something you find useful to spend your time on?

        Besides, as far as I can tell, Mike recommended watching it, but he felt the plot fell short compared to the oldest of the Star Trek movies (I personally haven’t watched them).

      • Ripsnort

        Butthurt mindless-action-movie fan is incredibly butthurt. Shouldn’t you find something better to do with your time, like find an abandoned well to throw yourself into? What a pathetic failure of a troll, you’ve managed to convince approximately 0 people so far that RLM isn’t worth watching.

  • Wildride

    Ooh — I know. For the next movie they should rip off Wrath of Khan again. Sure, that’s failed three movies in a row, but I’m sure the next time they do it, it’ll be fine.

  • Freitas

    Man, I had no idea this movie sucked so much. I’m glad I didn’t spend my money on it. Don’t get me wrong, I like action, but the lack of a good solid plot has became a constant on Hollywood movies and I grew tired of it.

    • chris moll

      I’m so glad i watched this movie before the HITB review. I probably would have skipped it, but these guys(who i generally agree with) really got it all wrong. They act as if they are so cerebral and elitist in this review, but they get details of the plot all wrong. I can’t believe they wouldn’t recommend this movie, actually shocked. This movie really set the bar to a new level and I’m so glad that J.J. Abrams has Star Wars in his good hands as well. Its almost like these guys think they are so smart about movies and have a “superior intellect” but can’t think “three dimensionally” about the great plot. I was on the edge of my seat the whole time because I cared about the characters, was engaged by the action(not pointless action, but action that drove the plot) I was captivated and charmed by the suave and brilliant Kahn(who was not a monster mask villian) I enjoyed the comic relief which was minimal, subtle and well placed, and the character arcs were complex and well written. I think you will see a lot of people in these comments with polarized opinions, but the ones that like the movie seem to eloquently explain the finer details of the film that the HITB crew missed, and they back it up with explanations and reasons. From the people that don’t like it they just say “rip off, plot hole” but don’t have as much explanation. Ultimately it is an opinion, you either like it or you don’t, but I would def form your own one instead of putting your trust in HITB this time around.

      • Cousin Vinny

        Uh, everything that guy just said is bullshit…thank you.

  • fsdfsdf

    God damn’t man.. I wear my seat belt… Fuck off already.

  • Alex

    I must be the most brainless here. I’m having trouble getting past Humberto Cabbagepatch.

  • BK

    Sorry, I kinda got caught up in trying to determine whether or not Rich was drinking out of a Code Beer mug from the Safe House. How did you guys feel about the movie?

  • thomas040

    What’s that dog barking in the background?

  • William Shakesman

    Dear Mike and Jay,

    Please don’t let all these angry comments get to you. Your opinions are your own, yet because some people don’t agree with them, they must be wrong. RLM fans always agree with you… except when they don’t…

    Personally, I agree with you 100% on this review. Into Darkness was just a mess. I found it to be parody of the Wrath of Khan, lacking any real substance.

    And to all of those who are complaining about how they approved of Iron Man 3 (which was filled with “plot holes”) but disapprove of Into Darkness, they’re doing so because at least Iron Man 3 TRIED to be original. While the Mandarin twist was controversial and rather unnecessary, it gave the film its own unique feel and added some depth to an otherwise generic action film. What did Into Darkness give us that wasn’t by the numbers? Nothing. It ripped whole lines of dialogue and story beats from other Trek films (and even followed the exact framework of its 2009 predecessor). Well, I guess it did add more explosions and ridiculous character inconsistencies… Never mind Into Darkness was brilliant!

    Seriously though, I do have one problem with this review… how did Mike know Richard William Thomas Evans III’s name when he was supposed to be a complete stranger?

    … PLOT HOLE!!!

    • Second Language

      Right on!

      But I don’t think I was a plot hole… they normally drop the ‘backstory’ when they go into review mode… rs

      • Indeed

        Right, watch other reviews with a guest. They usually come on as a character, do some schtick, and then drop character when the review starts. When the review ends they briefly go back into character to make an exit.

  • Guy of Doom and Shit

    Great review. Rich Evans steals the show from beginning to end! <3

  • Git Picker

    I tend to agree with these guys on most reviews. It just seems like their viewpoint this time around is that adding elements that will appeal to a large enough amount of people is a bad thing.

    I suppose that can lead to a movie being severely dumbed down and thus a it’s pile of crap. But I just don’t think that’s the case with this movie. It was dumbed down just a little bit, not enough to make it the terrible movie they seems to think it is. I think it was well acted and had an engaging, if slightly unbelievable plot.

    I just don’t know why they think this movie is so awful but they can somehow tolerate a movie as confusing and inconsistent Prometheus.
    You wanna see something with plot-holes? See Hamlet. This guy just keeps making bad decisions. Why the hell does he stab someone behind a curtain without checking if it’s his nemesis Polonius? It really doesn’t make a lot of sense, but it advance thes story so we can see the disastrous consequences that taken as a whole is considered to be one of the greatest theatrical works in history.

    My point is, suspend your disbelief; I’ll admit, sometimes a plot-hole can be so stupid it’s impossible not to tear it apart. But if you never let this kind of stuff slide, it gets harder to appreciate most storytelling, even Shakespeare.

    • name

      They can be VERY forgiving of movies. Hell, you even mention their Prometheus review yourself. This one just seemed to have too much bad that outweighed the good.

    • Alex Lee

      Hamlet was about a bi-polar kid who can plan schemes, but depending on the day, doesn’t feel like executing them. And in the scene where he kills Polonius, he was already neck-deep in palace intrigue and thought it was an assassin planning to kill either him or Gertrude. His paranoia (although hiding behind curtains is already strange behavior) got the better of him.

      I hate Hamlet too, but I never registered everything he did as plot holes.

  • Matt

    Damon Lindelof can’t write for shit, but he can suck a bag of dicks

    • http://twitter.com/madhi19 John G

      Likely why he got the gig!

    • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

      Louis C.K. would ask how does one suck a bag of dicks? Do you suck each one individually? Do you suck the bag itself?

  • Dan

    Watching the movie I was also like “.. Cold fusion? What?”

    And I laughed at the KHAN shouting, which was just such a strange choice, because it’s supposed to be an emotional moment but that callback just made me laugh.

    Anyway, it didn’t quite dawn on me what a threadbare plot this movie had until you tried to explain it. Thanks for that.

  • 715

    I’m going with the impression that this is going to end up just like insurrection, its going to start strong with people loving it only until the DVD comes out and people acuity watch it rather than be detracted by the actors and action and start seeing all the seems and how stupid this story is.

    And Ricardo Montalbán is still the better Khan

  • ThatThorn

    Blip can delay the video for 30 min for all I care, I’m not watching some shitty saccharine ad for something I wont ever buy when I’m inundated with ads every single day from every angle possible.

    • NeedsTheToiletTooMuch

      I use it as a bathroom break.

    • whip

      Ok, that’s fine. you go ahead and be a rebel. But don’t whine about it here too. That kind of undermines your point. You go ahead and wait all day with your adblocker. But don’t cry about it then too.

  • DarthRandal

    The Orci-Kurtzman writing team seems to be very hit and miss, so if anything needs to change for the next feature, it’s these guys hitting the bricks. A new director wouldn’t hurt either, even though I don’t blame J.J. Abrams that much for all the mistakes (he’s always claimed he knows nothing about Trek, for better or worse). I also wonder how much “studio involvement” is to blame, though I doubt at this point that was a major factor.

    Anyway, most of the reviews I’ve read or heard about this film that are not positive are pretty much hitting all of the same points. For example:

    http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness-the-spoiler-faq-508927844

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HigwN5pyP1A

    http://transporterroom3.blogspot.com/2013/05/episode-42-is-star-trek-dead.html

    There is one point that I haven’t seen anyone make yet. It seems pretty obvious from the way the movie ended that they way to keep the door open for future run-ins with Khan. It’s also obvious that these new Star Trek movies are being made and marketed to people that historically hated or had no interest in watching it. So why not keep Khan’s agenda ambiguous or allow him to redeem himself altogether until the next film? Give him something to do other than be an echo of the previous character’s incarnation. At least it would have been an attempt towards the thing these movies set out to be – a new twist for a new audience for a trusted yet stale and waning brand.

    Besides, it’s not like anyone gives a shit if they piss off the pre-2009 film Trekkies in the audience. It’s all about making a “four-quadrant cash machine” feature with at least one internationally recognized actor or actress to get that overseas money that all the studios salivate over nowadays.

  • SkyDog

    I’m pretty much on level with Mike. I enjoyed the movie overall, but I’m disappointed by the lack of new ideas.

  • DreamsmithAJK

    Jay, Mike, …..random guy who wandered in….
    I agree with basically every point you make here: this was the worst movie experience I’ve had in years (if you don’t count Prometheus); it was so deeply stupid and riddled with holes, pandering, and horrible choices that by the end I was shaking my head in disbelief at what was happening on the screen.
    I still hope you’ll do a Plinkett review for this at some point, but I’ll happily settle for this Half in the Bag review.
    Thank you for doing what you do, sirs.

  • David

    I hope this will help people understand why Mike and Jay enjoyed films
    like The Avengers and Iron Man 3 but not Star Trek: Into Darkness.

    *It isn’t the Plot Holes*

    I’d like to make a point about plot holes and why they’re not what really drag this movie down. The more important difference is that the movie really lacked a central idea or throughline to hold it together and make it more than a collection of scenes. For me the Avengers and Iron Man 3 had clear character motivations, even when characters “made mistakes” it was clear why they would do that. Both films had a strong sense of what they were about on a thematic and character arc level, whereas I walked out of Into Darkness having enjoyed the funness of the action and a few character interaction scenes but no clear idea of what the film was about. It felt like Into Darkness had a lot of good individual pieces, but they didn’t combine into a bigger whole.

    For instance, ideas are brought up, which seem to be important, but they’re thrown away pretty quickly. This is compounded when the film tries to have “ooh, this is important, see there’s consequences!” only to throw it away within 15 minutes because it would ruin the status quo. Early in the film, Kirk’s command is revoked, only for it to be reinstated without him doing anything more than not dying by shear luck. Later, in his “death scene” he’s alive again after one foot chase and a bit of technobabble. For me at least, these scenes barely registered because the film wasn’t really about them. By comparison, Wrath of Khan had been thematically building up to the idea of sacrifice for “the needs of the many,” facing death, and discovering renewed life from death, for which Spock’s sacrifice was the keystone. Wrath of Khan chooses to let Spock’s death sink in for the remainder of the film, and the movie becomes about what the characters (and audience) learn from it. Even when Search for Spock brings him back, the movie becomes and exploration of the idea of the many choosing to sacrifice for the needs of one. Taken together, perhaps it says something like “one for all and all for one.” You don’t need to read it that far, but suffice it to say, the death scene in Wrath of Khan had import and meaning. I never felt that from Into Darkness because it was undone so quickly and easily that it really didn’t matter aside from making Spock angry and providing an opportunity to remake an iconic scene for fanservice.

    If you like this movie, then that’s good for you. If you didn’t, well, I can certainly see why. We can both learn from each other.

    • William Shakesman

      There’s a huge difference between a plot with plot holes and a plot that makes no goddamn sense. Iron Man 3 is the former – you know exactly what is going on and why. STID is the latter – you are constantly going “What the fuck is going on?” as the movie attempts to distract you from the blatant gaps in logic and character motivation.

      When I saw that Lindelof was involved it all made sense.

      Coincidentally, this is the divisive point of the Dark Knight Rises. Some people think the movie is the former and like it (including the HITB people), and some people think it’s the latter and that’s why they hate it so much.

  • Admiral Bonetopick

    Jesus Christ, why is Jay so dirty!?

    • CrudBudman

      I would imagine due to the opening sketch, but I guess it also could have been an act of protest against the big soap industry.

  • http://twitter.com/SidizenKane Smash-It Sid

    I agree with a lot of this, but I’d just like to point out that Khan didn’t know the missiles were going to be used against him on Kronos. He has to ask Kirk how many missiles there are, and he’s surprised to find out about them at all

  • http://www.codeofthewild.com/ SeanJJordan

    Does this mean we won’t get a Plinkett review for this film? Because as much as I hated Star Trek 2009 (not because I love the original series so much, but rather because it was one of the dumbest, most contrived popular films of the last 10 years), I thought the Plinkett review did a good job of justifying its existence.

    Half in the Bag is a great reviews show (which I’m really glad RLM is doing!), but the Plinkett reviews do a great job of dissecting films and explaining why they do/don’t work as cinema. We’re long overdue for a new Plinkett review anyhow.

    /I’m also in the minority of folks who liked GameStation 2.0. I’d love to see Rich and Mike retool the concept a bit and bring it back!

  • Matt

    Loved all Half in the Bags so far…
    this one sucked.

  • Ryan

    I liked the movie. I also like RLM. I guess I’m what they call a…

    CONTRADICTION

    • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

      I prefer con-trek-diction.

    • playdude92 .

      Eh, you´ll like RLM far longer. They´re true love compared to Into Darknesses fun, flashy, sexy but short fuck.

  • Ben Heckendorn

    This movie was a turd. If anything, Mike and Jay were too kind to it.

  • Percy Gryce

    Who knew Trekkies could type so much? #walloftext

  • chris moll

    link=richter belmont=cousin vinny= cloppity clop
    why does this asshole keep switching the names for his posts? he doesn’t seem to be here to comment on or discuss the movie.

    thinks he is a no it all but knows nothing. only comments on people comments about the movie instead of the movie itself. fucking lame

  • TrekChick

    you realize that when you post a review that posits that this movie is illogical, but the points you make merely expose the fact that you did not understand it or pay attention, you undermine your credibility? You should really re-watch, read the comments and then come back to discuss the real weakness of the movie. This fail is kind of surreal

    • alex

      They were acting overly confused for comedic effect. RLM does this kind of shit all the time. If their ONLY reason for ragging on this movie was the convoluted plot, you’d have a stronger argument, but they bring up a ton of other problems with it.

      Also, since when has RLM ever cared about “credibility?”

      • TrekChick

        But see, things are usually funny …because they are true. and, when you try to make funny out of nonsensical gibberish that was not in the movie, its not funny anymore.

        I imagine often. If no one finds you on point and/or funny, then they stop paying attention to you.

        • Gem

          “I imagine often.”
          How long have you been coming here?
          “If no one finds you on point and/or funny, then they stop paying attention to you.”

          So it is, by your own admission, possible to funny while not 100% on point. Therefore, RLM is immortal!

    • Guest

      Hah, no, you are rationalizing because you want to like the movie. Simple as that. The movie is a complete broken mess of plot holes and nonsense. They didn’t undermine anything… they are one of the few voices of negativity on this movie. Almost anywhere you look it’s glowing fanboy gushing and praise, and it’s a terrible movie. It’s sad. People need to wake up.

    • CrudBudman

      I’m sure TrekChick is here to give us an unbiased and well reasoned argument in defense of the new star trek movie, rather than vaguely call into question the other party’s credibilty, understanding, and comedic ability.

  • DreamSmithAJK

    Two hours of discussion???

    Is there any chance we could see the uncut version of this?
    I’ll admit, I have no life, so I’d be overjoyed to sit and listen to you guys ramble on about whatever movie for however long you care to go.
    Similar uncut episode of past reviews would be fantastic!
    If you have to, put ‘em up on your storefront for a buck apiece; I’ll buy them.

  • warrenEBB

    huh. i hated the movie for being TOO political and heavy messaged. clearly khan was was osama bin laden, hanging out in a desert near the the russians (klingons). It’s the movie where we almost lost our great american way of life to the warmongering politicians who do shit behind closed doors.

    kinda bizarre to say it was a brainless movie with nothing but explosions.

    • warrenEBB

      I was also let down by the reveal of Khan and the back half of the movie being non stop references to earlier glories. butttt sharp reviewers have gone ahead and explained interesting nuances in how the screenwriters put new spins on all these old untouchable moments (scott kurtz and kris straub recorded a great hour long dissection for hardcore star trek fans).

      * like pointing out how spock only discovered emotion in the first star trek movie – basically at the end of his career – so it’s quite a huge change to have the young spock exploring emotions at the very start of his career.
      * and how spock’s classic dying line about always being friends was originally emotional because they’d been friends so long, while kirk’s dying line about being friends was emotional because they’d only just discovered their friendship (and he was a kid dying before his career could start).

      i think once the angry nerds of the internet have time to watch this movie a few times and consider it on it’s own level, they’ll be far kinder.

  • JustPassingBy

    I am sort of tempted to go watch it even if it looks horrible only to hear Cumberbatch speak. Maybe I should just wait and get the dvd. On the him being obscure since a little while ago you guys should go and see around Tumblr, it has been Cumberbatchland practically since the beginning.

  • Gyro

    How did the Tribble die? Someone thought it was a sponge and they were cleaning the inside of the reactor and it died of radiation poisoning.

    • http://profiles.google.com/charlesp2009 Charles Petrosky

      It appeared to be gorged.

  • Mark Bisone

    Alright, I just saw this abomination, and I’ll try to break it down in a straightforward way.

    RLM’s greatest critique of “Darkness” actually comes in the final seconds, when Rich (without any context or precision whatsoever) screams “9/11 was an inside job” and then runs off screen.

    I would have been fine with it if this exchange was the entire review and they’d spent the other 44.5 minutes defenestrating hipsters. Basically, for the past decade American cinema has built a new genre based on vague geopolitical critique, but without a useful or creative perspective. Whether it arrives center-left-ish (Attack of the Clones, V is for Vendetta, Avengers, Avatar) or center-right-ish (The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, Watchmen), the political commentary is almost always purposely diffuse, contradictory and illogical, to ensure that the global audience audience consuming it doesn’t choke on their global popcorn. It is just distant enough to accommodate a plurality of opinions while alienating only hardcore political cranks and art lovers. Meanwhile, they crank that action/angst/romance shit to 11, to ensure all the teens have an excuse to spend their disposable income.

    In other words, this genre is the equally dumb yer politically-tinged version of that “Reference Movie” shit without any real perspective or genuine feeling. And Damon Lindelof is its colorblind Rembrandt.

  • whip

    I’m only 20 minutes in and I had to stop just to post how much I love this review already. I’m so excited to see the guys on the exact same wavelength with me here. Despite so many angry fans raging about it.. they are so right on the money.

    I’m just ecstatic because they are hitting on all the exact points I made in numerous forums and facebook posts.. the story being a big shiny thing to distract you and not give you time to think about how bad and broken the story is.. The pointlessness of so many things, like it being Khan at all.. it’s just fan wankery.. and the Admiral Robocop line.. I’ve said that a few times this week.

    Loving it. I’m so relieved I was worried I was gonna hate this review.

    I’m sorry to those of you who still convince yourself this was a good movie. Please wake up.

    • The Rural Juror

      You may disagree with the review but you can’t hate it. Compare RLM to the amateurish talentless biased video “reviews” on aintitcool and you realise how fortunate we are to have this website.

      Also … Benedict Cabbagepatch. I’m still chuckling over this even as I’m typing.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

    33:10

    That laugh from Mike is just embarrassing… haha.

  • Kyle

    There is no bigger Star Trek fan than me. I was not a huge fan of 2009, but I have to say, once you accept that new Star Trek is just action, not real science fiction, it is actually really fun now. Give into your feelings.

    • Lemon Aidez

      Have you watched his Star Trek (2009) Plinkett review? I don’t think you have. That, or you have a case of the Alzheimers.

  • Coregoth88

    Great stuff!

  • Kyle

    Also, I don’t think he wanted them to fire the missiles with his people in them, because when they told him how many they had he got this “Oh shit, all my people are gonna die if you fire them at me.” look on his face. I don’t think it was his original plan to get captured because he later commented on the fact that he now thought Kirk would do the right thing ect. I don’t feel like typing more…

  • Phil Burkhill

    So I had to stop it within the first ten minutes, Kirk was not a by the book guy. He regularly broke the PD. Here is a quote from TOS when it came down to the PD.

    KIRK: No. The people of Yonada may be changed by the knowledge, but it’s better than exterminating them.
    SPOCK: Logical, Captain.

    That’s pretty much the essence of it, the PD can be bent and broken in certain scenarios.

  • http://www.facebook.com/brizben Bris Ben

    As a fan not only of the TV show and films, I also enjoy some of the novels and the old 70s cartoon- if you seperate yourself far enough from the production technicalities of classic trek it’s actually a very rewarding Star Trek movie! That said I hated the trek 2 rip off, and feel Kahn could have just been a whole new character.
    I want to know why jay says of id4 ‘fuck that movie’?

    • Chris Pendlebury

      I agree, for guys of the RLM generation 20-30, ID4 was an amazing movie that stood out in our youth, starting with Terminator 2, then Jurassic Park and ending with The Matrix. I wasn’t nitpicking plotholes in ID4 when I was 13. Even now, when I am so much smarter, ID4 is a really well made movie.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

    Also, it seems like this review is for all those whining to Mike and Jay about not having a longer review for Iron Man 3. Well, here you go, 44 minutes and 30 seconds worth of video! :D

    Now, because this is the internet, I guess I’m now required to tell RLM to go fuck itself because they’re hack frauds [yet come back here for every video] and that the people commenting are fanboys who enjoy RLM semen [everyone except me, that is].

    I’m so meta.

  • Phil Burkhill

    “how did he know they were going to fire the missiles”

    he didn’t

    “why didn’t he just take the missiles”

    yeah take 72 missiles out of section 31 headquarters, good one mike

    Seriously guys, you’re better than this.

    • whip

      The guy had a device to allow him to TRANSWARP HIMSELF 90 light years to the Klingon Homeworld. An idea that is so laughable as to be insulting. Why even have Starships anymore?

      I’m sure he could have found a way to transport the missles to a ship or something as well. Surely the writers could have given him the means to take the missles, seeing as they show such callous disrespect for any science in Star Trek already. Having him “take the missles” would not have been a problem.

      Don’t tell them they are “better than this”. You just are disagreeing because you want to like the movie, and are in denial. They aren’t doing anything wrong. They are breaking down how bad and broken this movie is. Logically and soundly.

      Hell, Khan should have just gone to a ship to begin with. Him Transwarping to Kronos was so pitiful and over the top, it’s just amazing that people let them get away with it. People just look at you like you are crazy for even thinking it’s a problem. Major character can just transwarp 90 lightyears away. No problem at all!

      It was all just excuse to.. SHOW KLINGONS. THAT’S IT. It’s exactly as they said. This movie is a series of set pieces and ideas stitched together half-assed manner. He could have gone to a ship and flew off and wreaked havoc. But no…

      We wanna show Klingons! And Khan! It needs Khan too! Oh and let’s have them flying through space again too, but bigger! That sequence was cool in the first one!

      And having ships crash into buildings. That’s cool. And terrorist like action on Earth! And big chase sequence with flying machines over the city!

      Ok, how do we connect it all up?

      As Jay said, this movie is like a magic trick, and many of you keep falling for it. You allow yourself to be distracted from how bad and broken (and frankly insulting) the story is. The action and high paced sequences keep you too disoriented.

      • Phil Burkhill

        Transwarp was established in a TNG episode, it has been seen being used in DS9 by S31 and the Dominion. They still have starships. It is not a new thing, it was never used due to how inaccurate it was and how much energy is required.

        Found a way to transport the missiles to a ship or something? How? Go ahead, if they had done that you’d have been whining about that too. How do you get those missiles away from Section 31?

        I’m saying they’re better than this because not only was the review not funny until about half an hour in, it was hugely flawed. They fail to establish what a Trek movie actually is – something which many Trek fans do tbf. They judge it against episodes instead of past movies, again very unfair. And when they do judge it against episodes, they completely present a one sided view point. Pen Pals – Picard is going to let them die, he doesn’t, they SAVE THE PLANET. If you want a TOS example, see my other comment with a quote from TOS about the Prime Directive which applies to this situation.

        The only thing I agree with is that the movie could have stood on its own without Khan, however I liked Khan and I liked how they reverse the TWoK scene.

        However their case is not helped by saying they “let other movies get away with it” i.e Avengers, IM3, Bond etc. Trek movies are put on a pedestal by fanboys, even if the vast majority of them are shit. This movie had both morality and political messages relevant to current day politics. It had a central theme of family and it had a lot of Trek elements e.g. Prime Directive was really well done.

        I enjoy their reviews, it has nothing to do with disagreeing – I love First Contact, but find the First Contact review hilarious. Not so with this, it’s fundamentally flawed on pretty much every level and isn’t even funny apart from a few parts in the last 15.

        • PegasusFantasy

          false, transwarp beaming never appeared on any series.
          usual apologist lie.

          what did appear in TNG is “subspace transporter” in TNG:Bloodlines. Picard used it to beam 300,000 km.
          Data says theoretically it could be used to beam “several light years”.

          And it required the enteprise to match the Ferengi’s ship warp velocity. Which of course in the JJtrek it doesn’t.

          The Dominion Transporter Technology had a maximum range of 3 light years. So again, not the same thing at all.

          Otherwise they would have f****ing beamed millions of jem hadar on earth or something.

          Khan is now able to travel 90+ ly, while driving a helicopter, with a PORTABLE DEVICE.

          About Penpals, they brought it up to highlight the fact that the initial mission itself was a violation, not to merely bitch about them violating the PD. What’s the problem?

          • Phil Burkhill

            Dominion transporters had -at least- a range of three light years from what we know. There are plenty of reasons why they wouldn’t just beam millions of Jem’Hadar onto Earth, but that’s Star Trek for you and it’s always the writers discretion. Simply put, unless you’re being nitpicky, it’s pathetic to hold it against the movie. Writers on Trek always pull stuff like this out of their ass, I’m just surprised they brought it up from the previous movie instead of forgetting it. Like in TNG, it was never widely used because it was unsafe (2009 movie, they beamed into the middle of a bunch of Romulans and Scotty nearly died on the Enterprise) and the power requirements were huge. What’s the problem there?

            Pen Pals had a giant speech about a “cosmic plan” or “fate” which was intellectual cowardice from Riker to get around the fact he was talking about a God. Pen Pals was a bad episode overall, but they used it in this review to talk about Picard would uphold it. Except he didn’t in this episode.

            And no, the initial mission WASN’T a violation of the PD in this episode, it was a surveying mission. They realised the volcano was going to wipe the planet out, so elected to stop it and this is exactly in line with what TOS Kirk/Spock would’ve done. The problem came from Kirk lying on his Captain’s log.

          • PegasusFantasy

            “What’s the problem there?”
            ———————————-

            The problem is you lied.

            Just accept the new writers don’t care (nor should they) about technicalities instead of making up stuff to defend them.

            Now warp speed is just FTL from SW, they can get to anywhere in minutes/seconds, the distances don’t matter anymore.

            ACCEPT IT. Don’t be the moronic apologist trying to explain away the new mindset (and failing) with Technobabble.

            “the power requirements were huge.”

            ———————————————–

            really? so huge a portable 1m tall device could satisfy them in STID. If anything, the writers aren’t consistent with their own made up BS..

            “And no, the initial mission WASN’T a violation of the PD in this episode,”

            ——————————————-

            Are you playing dumb? Of course I/the RLM guys didn’t mean the STARFLEET ORDERS, but the initial attempt to save the natives itself

            “The problem came from Kirk lying on his Captain’s log.”

            —————————————-

            Uh, no, Pike accuses Kirk of “playing God” and expressely states they violated the Prime Directive.
            The lies on Kirk’s log are icing on the cake.

          • Yukons

            Pegasus is right. I don’t mind people thinking this movie is fun and exciting, but please don’t try to defend its science or plot, because there is none. At least to the standard already set by the TNG-era series.

            Truth is, the writers (especially Lindelof, who ruins everything he touches) think we’re stupid. They think we’ll look at the blinking lights while they phone in a sub-par plot.

            Again, if you thought these new Treks are fun and that’s good enough for you, then great. Seriously. I just wanted more. I can find fun down at the playground or playing mario bros. Trek is supposed to offer me more.

          • Phil Burkhill

            There are no lies, people warped over light years in the series and I have no problem with them doing it in the movies. Not only that, it’s literally not a big deal for me – I don’t put the movies on a pedestal, nor do I compare them to the admittedly superior TV show. Hell, Roddenberry proposed that a Trek series be set with only transporters being used – of course this was nixed.

          • PegasusFantasy

            Keep lying Phil

          • Yukons

            Good points. Well said.

          • Phil

            I think the movie contained many tributes to TOS. The PD violation related to TOS because in TOS Kirk regularly rationalized the PD without consequences. In reboot he gets burned for it. Also Chekov, “put on a red shirt” and his subsequent gasp was awesome since Chekov, particularly in the movies was always getting injuries, I.e., burned in the first movie, the bug in the ear in Wrath of Khan, and falling off the aircraft carrier in the journey home. So I was a little surprise he didn’t get thumped. There were many more references and that will make me and I suspect many other old fans watch not only this movie again but TOS as well.

          • Yukons

            Kirk would never falsify a report or a log. Even when he broke the rules and stole a star ship (ST3), he planned to travel back to earth and stand trial for it (ST4). It’s completely out of character. A person like new-kirk would be in jail, not commanding the flag ship.

    • jen

      a better question-why did he hide them in missiles? I mean if he had enough time to hide them in missles he didn’t have enough time to like push a button and pop them out of the cryo-tubes? And why the hell would the admiral guy give the Enterprise all of the special awesome missiles? Wouldn’t he want to keep some? Unless he like, knew there were frozen people in the missiles. Again, wouldn’t he want to keep some? Like, almost all of them so that there’s less chance of crazy superman getting out and running around and foiling plans? If you want to get rid of them just blow them up on your creepy secret base. I mean he asked Kirk to fire at Khan from the neutral zone or something. It wasn’t like Khan was going to have advance notice of his impending death and the admiral could get a lot of satisfaction out of him suffering over knowing his people were going to die (actually just one person, the other 71 would just hang out frozen on the ship-sure hope the Klingons didn’t decide to capture the Enterprise, that would be awkward). Khan would just be walking around and then suddenly be dead. It didn’t have to be freaking poetic, because he would be too dead to fast to appreciate it.

  • Phil Burkhill

    Khan only “best” Kirk with an inferior ship because Kirk showed a huge amount of incompetence in TWOK and didn’t raise his shields when the Reliant approached, even though Saavik warned him.

    Just sayin’

    • Drock

      I have IBS so i couldn’t sit through all of the ST movies and properly learn their acronyms.

  • dnzo

    I must respectfully disagree with this review. This movie was great, better then the first one. I am a huge Star Trek nerd, have probably seen every episode of every series, and I think what this comes down to is people being unhappy that Star Trek has turned into this action adventure franchise. There’s also a resentment here for reboots or remakes of any kind, which I think is misguided in -some- cases. Having said that, there are certainly some pitfalls in terms of this movie’s writing, which doesn’t surprise me with Lindelof behind the screenplay.

    • Phil Burkhill

      I’m more than willing to entertain criticisms, I think that the movie didn’t need Khan and while I enjoyed the twist, I thought it had the strength to carry itself – especially with an actor as talented as Cumberbatch. That being said, I thought most of it was nitpicky and had a really poor understanding of what was going on plot-wise. The pace of the movie was breakneck however, so a lot of the plot did go over peoples heads.

      • The Rural Juror

        Benedict Cabbagepatch’s character could’ve been numerous other Star Trek antagonists from the past. Gary Mitchell comes to mind especially with the superior intellect and godlike powers. However the general audience would not know who the history of this character whereas Khan is now part of our pop culture.

        The thing is … the general audience wouldn’t have known who Khan was when The Wrath of Khan first came out. But the writers were able to introduce the character and establish him as the iconic figure we are now all familiar with. Film writers today wouldn’t have the creative ability to introduce such a character which is why they keep referencing previous widely watched films.

        • Phil Burkhill

          One of the problems with making him Khan is that it’s friggin’ Khan. So that talk of how he was a multi-dimensional and more sympathetic character – while technically true – goes out of the window if you know anything about Khan Noonien Singh the man.

          • jen

            yeah I just don’t get why they made him Khan, especially since they then went and made such a big deal and tried to lie and say it wasn’t. I mean fans might have had a lot of excitement if there hadn’t been all the weird confusion, wider audiences don’t really know that much about it (like literally the theater I was in was packed and when he said he was Khan everyone was dead silent like…so?). And with the way the character was handled (both being cast as a white guy and just being so DIFFERENT from the Khan we know as a character) it just seems like it would have been way smarter to dodge fanboy irritation and just make him some other dude. It honestly wouldn’t have changed the movie at all. Just advertise it as ‘Cumberbatch, the next scary Trek villain guy’ and it would have been fine.

      • whip

        Ya what a shock. Another irrational fan lover who doesn’t actually tell us why the movie is good, instead tells those who hate it how they are just too stupid to get it.

        Brilliant. It’s Prometheus all over again. Or the Matrix sequels. I can’t count the number of people who I saw saying people who didn’t like them just weren’t smart enough to get them.

        I think people who think this way should look into the Dunning Kruger effect. You may find it enlightening. Maybe you are far less intelligent than you actually think you are.

        When you guys are forced to resort to strawman and person attacks as means of defending this crap movie, it really says all we need to know. You can’t defend it substantively. You can only attack, belittle, and try to destroy the credibility of those who disagree with your take.

        Because that’s all you got. This movie is undeniably broken, fan service and nonsense. It’s obvious, as they said, it’s a million set pieces and ideas they had, all forcibly thrown together in a half hazzard manner.. No real story. Just one action piece or fan service to another, to another.. and “connect the dots”.

        It’s full of fan service/fan wanking and references people will get.. but suspiciously lacking on any decent plot or substance. It completely steals from Wrath of Khan, in a ham fisted manner that is actually insulting..

        But somehow, many of you just bend over backwards to like it.

        Let me do your own strawman reasoning back at you.

        Maybe you just want to like it because you are irrationally predisposed to enjoy Star Trek. You WANT to like it. YOU WANT it to be good. So you ferociously bat away at things that put it down. Because that threatens your own emotional investment into liking it.

        In short, you are behaving as fanboys. Irrational. Wholly irrational and willing to excuse or accept anything they throw at you, as long as it has Star Trek on it. You don’t think about it. You don’t want to think about it. You had your visceral, gut reaction to “love it” as you walked out of the theater.. and you simply will not allow that to be challenged.

        Everyone else is wrong! That’s easier for your ego to digest.

    • zerosozha

      I agree with you 100%

      I’ve seen nearly every episode of every series, seen all the movies, read many of the comics, etc.

      Personally, I love TNG and DS9, appreciate ENT, and dislike TOS and VOY. But I know people who adore VOY and hate DS9.

      Even within the fanbase, there’s a lot of dissenting opinion.

      If you look at the new films as their own universe, their own separate part of Trek cannon, you can appreciate these films a lot more. They’re far from perfect, but there’s no reason to shit on them just because of explosions.

      Also….a Star Trek plot being nonsensical? STOP THE PRESSES!

      • whip

        You and others consistently don’t get it, and insist on telling us why we hate it.. when we are telling you why we hate it.

        But you reject our reasons with a handwave, and insert your own rationales. But offer nothing substantive as to the quality of the movie at all.

        Just excuses and hand waving and rationalizing.

        You guys are fanboys. You want to like it. It’s as simple as that. You are emotionally invested into liking it. And now you are being challenged on that.

        Mature, rational people take a step back and open their minds. Insecure people dig in belligerently and fight back, even when they are losing horribly.

    • whip

      Nope. I must disagree with your so called comments.. because you don’t actually tell us WHY it is a good movie. Instead, you concoct strawman reasons for why people hate it.

      That alone is a strong enough sign of who’s right or wrong in the debate. When one side is solidly using facts and well constructed arguments based on the plot specifically.. and the other is constantly resorted to “you guys just didn’t get it!” or “it was too smart for you!” or similar nonsense, you know which side is right.. and which side is just desparate to argue and be right, because they loved the thing anyhow.. and they are struggling with their own denial quite publicly.

      • dnzo

        Huh? People can voice an opinion, just because we don’t write out a full review of our own doesn’t make it any less valid. And you just did exactly what you are criticizing – you state you disagree with me, explained very briefly why you think I am wrong, ‘trouted’ your own “trek credentials” after telling me not to do the same, and in a single sentence outlined why the new movies are bad. Yeah, way to come off sounding like a hypocrite there.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Livio-Nava-Ponce/100001179004097 Livio Nava Ponce

    They liked Iron Man 3 but they didn’t like Star Trek, that’s a fuck up situation.

    • http://www.facebook.com/rob.cline.94 Rob Cline

      Not really. Iron Man 3 wasn’t trying to be something that it isn’t.

    • whip

      It is?

      Maybe those of you who think the opposite are wrong? You know, maybe? :)

      ROFL.

  • http://twitter.com/JackMarco Jack_Marco

    Lol, so many butthurt Star Trek Fantards in this comment section XD

    • http://www.facebook.com/rob.cline.94 Rob Cline

      And you are just butthurt for the obvious reason.

      • goo

        How is he butthurt? What’s the obvious reason? What?

      • SkyDog

        I am trying to figure out what this means.

      • whip

        butthurt fanboy can’t help but respond to attack, but offers nothing rational or substantive. What a shocker lol.

        You just couldn’t help yourself though. He called you a butthurt fanboy, and you weren’t able to resist the urge to swing back. However lamely.

  • Tyler Sypherd

    Okay so nothing personal Jay and Rich both have there moments I don’t know the guys personally, we made out once but honestly they’re kind of pricks Jay most of all I’ve just sort of a noticed this recently that despite is sometimes wise perspectives on things he is an obnoxious guy and he’s getting on my nerves, Mike is what makes these he is the wisest, the funniest and always tries to look at things from a reasonable perspective rather than just bashing. See Mike is the key to everything, once we get him working everything else will fall into place, see he’s a funnier character than we’ve ever had before…see I did like a thing.

    • http://www.sunnystrangers.blogspot.com/ Bryan M. White

      Actually, Jay has always seemed to me like the nicer of the two.

      • Tyler Sypherd

        WHAAAAAAAA!?!?! Oh okay…guess it’s just me then…

        • http://www.sunnystrangers.blogspot.com/ Bryan M. White

          Maybe you knew an asshole who looked like him. That happens to me a lot.

          • Tyler Sypherd

            You know you might be right, now that you mention it he does remind me of someone who was an asshole. Or perhaps he just reminds me or me and/or my dad, we’re both assholes too haha. XD

  • Mr. Cabbagepatch

    I enjoyed the movie, although I had some of the same facepalm moments: Khan, shallow characters, etc., but, I wish they talked about why it’s called “Into Darkness.” I am baffled by the title of this movie. It can be justified If they were going for the dark, Empire Strikes Back, middle chapter thing. However, it’s not a three act storyline like Star Wars, so if they make another movie, which they no doubt will, the story here is of no consequence. The first movie didn’t really matter in this one, but unlike Star Wars, nothing was set up in Into Darkness for Star Trek 3: Trek Hard with a Vengeance.

    Also, SPACE THREESOME.

    • Yukons

      lol@Trek Hard with a Vengeance. I thought the third installment was to be called ‘Star Trek: Now It’s Personal’

  • Tyler Sypherd

    Why do they keep saying that Khan wanted them to fire the missiles, I never got that, did he put them in the missiles? I thought the admiral did that as a way to threaten him and he was trying to get them all back to wake them up. Oh I’m so confused, what’s happening in this Stat Tours movie? Does anybody want a pizza roll? Email me if you want a pizza roll and email me if you can explain the plot of this movie at http://www.nobodycaresyoustupiddumbassholebecauseatleastitwasanentertainingmovie.com@.org.com

  • Tyler Sypherd

    “Every movie will be ‘You’re best friends’” wait that wasn’t what every TOS Star Trek movie was about huh wouldn’t know that from watching them (Though I must admit I’ve never seen number VI the Undiscovered Country)

    • jen

      it was about space politics. And Klingons reciting Shakespeare.

      • Tyler Sypherd

        Cool! Now I have to see it! XD

  • Tyler Sypherd

    They are totally write about the Old Spock scene and the whole “Khan was the most greatestest worstest villain we ever found” bull crap really he was? Why? He was just one of many crazy would be conquerors that the Enterprise crew fought, what because Spock died, that wasn’t really him and it wasn’t lasting so iono he’s a good villain but he was not the most badestest bad man they ever fought or whatever Old Spock said.

  • Tyler Sypherd

    So none of these guys so the super obvious right in your face message about not taking revenge, Kirk wants revenge on Khan for killing Pike but doesn’t kill him because it’s wrong and then Spock is going to kill Khan but then the crew stops him and the whole speech at the end, I’m not saying it was good but it was there as were the politics…which were also super obvious (THIS IS ABOUT SEPTEMBER 11TH! THIS IS ABOUT TERRORISM! THIS IS ABOUT THE FIRST RESPONDERS AND THE WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST!!!! DID YOU GET IT!? CAN WE SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU EVEN MORE!!!!!) but they were trying they sort of. Oh and if TNG is so create at showing a peaceful future where all men are at peace why are the Admirals in TNG like almost always evil or corrupt?

    • Yukons

      It’s a writing tool. A way of forcing Picard to do something he knows is wrong. The admirals aren’t evil, just misguided or a little worse. In the end, we see that humans are evolved and wonderful because they ultimately blow the whistle on the Admiral Whatev’s corruption. Hence, once again, the future is bright.

      • Tyler Sypherd

        Yeah I’m not sure that’s true how can humanity be great when it’s chief organization has promoted a bunch of inept, corrupt and deluded individuals. But I can see what you’re saying, though to me it was the same thing in this movie, just done in a dumber way where the “misguided bad guy” get’s killed by the badderer bad guy.

        • Yukons

          Thanks for the response. I see what you’re saying.

          I’m just saying that the writers of TNG episodes would say, “We want to put Picard in this situation where he has to do something he doesn’t want to. How can we do it? Oh yeah, a mean ol’ admiral will give him an order that he can’t refuse.”

          In the end, Picard will show us that humanity calls out villains even when they’re higher than us on the food chain. Go humanity!

          I’m not talking about Into Darkness or Insurrection where outrageously evil admirals get away with spending federation resources building massive death ships with no one noticing. That’s stupid, unbelievable, and, in my humble opinion, not true Trek.

          • Tyler Sypherd

            Yeah that makes sense, I see your point and I agree it doesn’t seem very Star Trek-ie to me but since I’m cynical about human nature it’s not altogether surprising to me when something like that happens either. I mean a little corruption here in there makes sense, it’s realistic, but maniacally evil Admiral’s yeah that’s just dumb, I doubt Star Fleet would let that happen.

          • Yukons

            Hey man, you’re not alone. Everyone’s cynical and apathetic. Especially on the interwebs. I look to Trek for an escape, a glimmer of hope. I watch a lot of news. I’m well aware of how shitty the world is. I want to believe that we’ll get past it.

            Hell, a race of people aren’t even allowed into the Federation until they’ve worked out their petty disputes. That’s important to me. The behavior I see in newer movies tells me that humans wouldn’t even be accepted into their own Federation.

          • Alex Lee

            Yeah, I was thinking Nechayev when you wrote this. About the only real evil Admiral in TNG was Pressman, but it was clear that he was in the minority when compared to the rest of the Admirals not infected with mind-control parasites.

    • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

      “9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! IF YOU WANNA LEARN MORE, GO TO: 911PRESERVETHETRUTH/911WASANINSIDEJOB.ORG OR LIKE ME ON FACEBOOK! PRESERVE THE TRRUUUTH!”

  • Right

    I can’t get over the fact that Mike said that having the enemy ships in the new Star Trek movies bigger than the Enterprise to show that they’re the bad guys is because audiences are dumb, but praised Star Wars: A New Hope’s opening scene as “genius” for doing the exact same thing.

    • till

      In star wars that opening shot set the atmosphere and was symbolic of the empires reach, in star trek its simply bad guys need big ship there wasn’t much else to it, plus its the same thing they did in the 2009 star trek

      • Phil Burkhill

        Actually the Vengeance was symbolic of Admiral Marcus’ desire to have Starfleet become the militarised arm of the Federation, loaded with weapons and advanced warp capability desined to destroy the enemies of the Federation. It was in contrast to the Enterprise, a sleek exploration ship which didn’t fire phasers once against the dark monstrous ship armed to the teeth. It was symbolic of the struggle that Starfleet faced against military power. You can see it in the name, Vengeance and Enterprise, which one represents Starfleet better?

        See I can pull shit out of my ass too.

        • http://www.facebook.com/rob.cline.94 Rob Cline

          You can evidently pull shit out of your mouth as well, as you just proved.

          • Phil Burkhill

            That was kinda my point, if Lucas decided a bigger ship is more threatening then thats why he used it…it’s as legit as my assertion they used a huge bulking dark and war mongering ship like the Vengeance as an opposite for the exploratory Starfleet and Enterprise, which was one theme of the movie.

          • SkyDog

            If this was the first movie with a giant evil looking spaceship, it would be fine if handled well and it could even tie into the themes – the problem highlighted in the review was that this is actually the third film in a row to do the exact same thing for dramatic tension. By this point, it’s stale.

        • jen

          meh, you’re just being pissy to be pissy. the star wars shot is iconic to the point where it has been parodied. I don’t know if it was the first sci-fi movie to do that schtick but it was definitely the most memorably shot. I honestly just saw the star trek movie like last week and I don’t even remember the shot they used. I just remember the ship was ‘real big’. And they didn’t open ‘empire strikes back’ by using the same shtick again- but they used it already in the 2009 film. And better, I should say. I actually still remember some of the shots from that movie of the Romulan ship just because it was so weird-looking. I don’t even get why people are mad. Yeah this film wasn’t as good as the 2009 Star trek, it was dumber, so what. You can still like a dumb movie if you want.

        • till

          oh i get that, really i do because the movie kept telling me. It wasn’t so much symbolism as it was grabbing a bat and beating my head with it.

      • Butthurt Fanboy

        Maybe the bad guys should have smaller ships than the good guys, and get destroyed in the first ten minutes or so.

    • whip

      I can’t believe anyone could possibly miss a point as badly as you did. LOL

  • Josh G

    I’m a huge fan of Red Letter Media, thus I feel bad even suggesting a future piece of content, but you guys are influential and in a place where I think you could actually plant a seed of doubt in JJ Abrams’ skull…which after Star Trek Into Darkness, I realized is exactly what someone needs to do. I think this is the perfect film to do a Plinkett review for, because after seeing how it carelessly butchered the Star Trek universe, I left the theater with a sick feeling in my gut that the future of Star Wars was in the hands of an egomaniac who has reached a point in his career where he feels he can do no wrong. Yes, Abrams can direct action sequences and come up with cute lines for his pussy actors to say, but the level of laziness achieved in the telling of this film has reached a level that in many ways (at least in my opinion) rivals that of George Lucas himself. Bottom line, I think a well placed hit to the bow of Abrams’ yacht (the USS I Love Sucking My Own Cock…in 3D IMAX!) is exactly what this frazzle-haired jackass needs. Lindelof watches your content, which means JJ Abrams will definitely see it, so I beg you…be cruel. Be merciless. Tell this hack what he needs to know and do it fast before we have another space disaster on our hands. Thanks for reading!

    • Person

      Abrams didn’t write into darkness. One of their main points was that it was well directed but poorly written.

      • Yukons

        Correct, but this band of writers is tight with JJ. Check out all past works by JJ and these writers, there’s a lot of intersections. They’re ‘boys’. And the director is the boss and ultimately responsible for the writing.

        JJ wouldn’t be able to identify a bad trek plot because he’s admittedly not a trek fan. That’s the main problem.

        • Yukons

          Just to counter-point myself…

          Nick Meyer wasn’t a Trek fan either, but he brought us 2, 4 & 6, considered to be the best movies. The difference was that Meyer was intelligent and directed good scripts written by Trek veterans. He ended up successfully shaping Trek for the next generation.

          • Alex Lee

            Didn’t Meyer do his research and watched TOS before he made Wrath of Khan?* Maybe that’s the difference between the two. One is willing to do his homework and the other thinks it’s like eating Broccoli.

            *As research and not because he likes or dislikes it.

      • Josh G

        This is true, but Abrams is most certainly at the point in his career where if he disagrees with the construction of the tale he’s trying to tell, the studio is going to bend over backwards to make sure the script is to his liking. Obviously it was to his liking (which is scary due to the level of horrendous we’re talking about here)…that or he just doesn’t care anymore because he’s JJ Abrams and who on Earth would have the guts to challenge him? Well, luckily for us there’s a clear answer to that question. PLINKETT.

    • Qui Gon Booze

      Seriously, at this rate Star Wars Episode 7 is going to be exactly like the prequels – just a bunch of retarded pointless action held together by a retarded nonsensical plot. But it’ll be worse, as like this movie, they’ll just have nothing but a constant stream of pop culture Star Wars references to the original trilogy, as well as an indentical plot.

  • Catoblepa

    Wow… How did you manage to get your hands on so many Xbox One prototypes? That shelf in the background is literally filled with them!

  • Pingback: Joshua's space

  • chud

    LOL at the comments that are upset because they got some minor plot point wrong here or there. The point they’re making with the long rambling, confused attempt at explaining the plot is that the movie barrels through the important story elements so fast and with such little interest in making itself coherent. It’s also only one issue they bring up amongst a whole ton of other issues with the movie. To complain “you got this one part of the story wrong in your explanation” is missing the forest through the trees.

    • Phil

      Actually no it is not a minor plot point.

      They present STID as a revamp of Skyfall and Avengers where the villain gets caught on purpose and plans 20 steps in advance.

      STID is the exact opposite. Marcus recruits Khan and it blows up in his face. Khan tries to rescue his mate and he has to flee instead. Marcus tries to get Kirk to kill Khan but he apprehends him instead and finally Kirk allies himself with Khan and gets betrayed.

      If anything this film is anti-conspiracy, it shows that when you try to do something clever, most of the time you can’t control all the variables and it doesn’t work.

      • William Shakesman

        I’m pretty sure Khan implies he put them in the missiles on purpose so someone would come after him with the missiles, so he could get them back.

        If it sounds retarded it’s because the script was a goddamn mess.

    • Percy Gryce

      “. . . for the trees.”

  • John Harrison

    Dear RLM,

    1) You should watch the british TV series ‘SHERLOCK’ to see more of Benedict Cumberbatch. It’s definitely worth it! He’s a damn good actor.

    2) I’m a long time Star Trek fan and i really like J.J.’s Trek Movies. I have no complain whatsoever with these action-packed super fast films. They entertain me without making me angry. The Star Wars Prequels and Indiana Jones 4 made me angry because they were dumb and lazy films. They failed to entertain me.

    3) OLD Star Trek died with the last episode of ‘Enterprise’. OLD Star Trek deserved to die because it was worn out. J.J. Abrams injected the franchise with new life in a popular contemporary way. As much as i like the old stuff – the new stuff is different and equal in entertainment value.

    • Yukons

      1) Yes, Sherlock is high-quality. Benny does a great job.

      2) I’ve caught on to a lot of JJ’s tricks, like his emotional arm-twisting. Have you noticed that the first scene in ALL his movies involves some mega-emotional scene with someone crying and someone dying? I’m on to his tricks. He’s become predictable to me.

    • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

      Wait a second…

      YOU’RE KHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNN!

  • b

    If everyone in Starfleet is a genius and Khan has a history on controlling a good quarter part of Earth, then why is it no one recognized him? Surely Starfleet Academy teaches history, and an advanced society would have had a picture of him.

    • PegasusFantasy

      the most logical explanation is S31 altered his facial appearance.
      that would also explain why he looks nothing like Montalban.

      • Notna

        And why he’s white.

  • Andy S

    I liked the crewmember with the robot voice and thing on the back of his head. He might have had robot eyes.

  • http://www.nostalgiajunkie.net/ nostalgiajunkie

    You know you’ve made it when your comment section is 99% stupid bullshit.

    • Bob JaBopistan

      I don’t know. I am not getting that “fuk u fagit” vibe that I get on other parts of the Internet.

      • Pa Kent Says Maybe

        I just got here.

  • pace202

    Soon as I saw the 3 hacks who were writing the script, I knew what we would get out of this film….

    If they go anywhere near Star Wars….we’re doomed.

    • pace202

      I guess people think 3 television writers are good at writing movie scripts

      • Butthurt Fanboy

        Yes, no one who has worked in TV has ever made a good film.

        *rolls eyes*

        • pace202

          Theres always exceptions. But yes, television writing doesnt translate well to film. And just because you’re good at one form of writing, doesnt mean you can accomplish another. This is the case for these 3 guys…and why most t.v. writers stay in t.v.

    • Pa Kent Says Maybe

      “We’re” doomed? Got a mouse in your pocket?

      May be news to you but STAR WARS is garbage cinema, too. They can do no harm to it. In fact, they will make more money, relatively speaking, all measurements, including inflation, considered, than “your daddy’s Star Wars” did.

      So, ‘sall good, ainnit?

    • Daniel Bakke

      As long as Damon “I’m a giant assholeface” Lindelof doesn’t get involved, I’m still optimistic towards Episode 7.

  • Butthurt Fanboy

    These guys didn’t have a problem with all the holes and contrivances in Skyfall, but they do with this movie?

    Into Darkness is as good as Skyfall, and much better than Iron Man 3.

    • guest

      Watch the video again. Plot holes are only a minor point of their overall problems with Into Darkness.

      • whip

        These guys refuse to get it.

        They are too busy wanting to like the movie. They are too emotionally invested in that.

        They had a gut, visceral reaction that they liked it, as they walked out of the theater.

        Then they saw that some people didn’t like it, and that challenged their view. That challenged their emotional investment into the series.

        Rather than be rational and try to accept the criticisms at face value, and look into the details.. they instead focus on minutiae like over-concern of the plot holes.. or nit picking the review.. or calling people idiots who didn’t get it.

        It’s all rather simple though..this is how they rationalize. They would rather assume they are right in their opinion, and everyone else is an idiot, or wrong.. that’s easier for their egos to digest.

        • Butthurt Fanboy

          Whereas I’m sure you were open-minded about the movie, and
          didn’t nitpick at all.

          I didn’t call anyone an idiot.

      • Butthurt Fanboy

        I haven’t watched it once yet. I can guess what it’s mostly about. These are fanboys, after all.

        • whip

          Wow, so you come here to pontificate on the review from a position of complete ignorance?

          And arrogantly on top of it all?

          Dunning-Kruger candidate anyone?

          Why should we take you seriously? Your name and stupid picture alone scream troll. But you are hear attacking people for disliking this horrible movie, from a position of 100% ignorance of what they are saying, and expect to be taken seriously?

    • Pa Kent Says Maybe

      And, none of the three are good movies.

      So, knock yerselves out, Blockbustards.

    • Yukons

      Every movie has plot holes somewhere. As these redletter reviews always point out, it’s the piling up of numerous plot holes that eventually pulls the viewer out of the movie. The brain can only accept so much before it starts rejecting the input.

      Add to that JJ’s style of MEGA-DRAMATIC scenes where the characters are taking something far more seriously than the plot holes suggest. It doesn’t add up. Again, the brain rejects.

    • http://twitter.com/Schaudwen Schaudwen

      At least Iron Man 3 tried to do something original and try new ideas. The point they kept rehashing in this review was how ITD didn’t try to really do anything REALLY new – everything was recycled, from the character development (rehash from movie one) to the catchphrases, to the uninspired Khan plot.

      I was genuinely delighted that I was able to walk into IM3 and not have guessed the entire plot from the trailers.

      With STITD? My sister who is also a trek fan and had seen the trailer had walked into the theatre, seen the image with the killerprise, and then groaned because she realized she now knew the entire general plot for the movie, just by being exposed to those three things. And she was not wrong….

      • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

        It’s Star Trek ‘Into’ Darkness, not ‘In To’. No need for the extra ‘T’ in ‘STID’ or the ‘T’ in ‘ID’.

        • http://twitter.com/Schaudwen Schaudwen

          Actually I was thinking ‘into THE Darkness’ – but either way I was wrong.

          • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

            Glad you didn’t take my correction as an insult. If there can be peace between people commenting on the internet, perhaps a future like Star Trek is closer than we think! :D

            Well, not the rebooted Star Trek, the old series.

          • http://twitter.com/Schaudwen Schaudwen

            No reason to get insulted when I was clearly wrong! And heck, it’s not like *I* chose the title – If I did, It’d be ‘into THE darkness’ because that trips off the tongue far easier in my opinion!

            Hey, if the Bajoran, a Changeling, a Klingon, a Ferengi, and a Cardassian could all get along on a utilitarian station at the edge of a wormhole, I’m sure even the internet can get along – at least every once in a while.

          • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

            As long as that Cardassian isn’t a named ‘Kim’.

      • Butthurt Fanboy

        Iron Man 3 was a rehash of other superhero movies and entirely
        predictable apart from the Mandarin twist.

        Into Darkness is only superficially similar to The Motion Picture. Fans complained that Kirk became captain of the Enterprise too quickly, so the writers took it away from him. The story plays out mostly differently than The Wrath of Khan.

        Off topic: Hello to my anti-NuTrek followers Man of Stool and Campbell_Glass from AICN, who follow me around the internet and thumb down my posts.

        • whip

          Imagined persecution on top of it all.

          Wow, you really are the complete package. :)

        • whip

          Oh, and they took the Enterprise away from Kirk for all of 10 minutes. See my lengthy post above about the complete lack of consequences in this movie.

          It’s just a series of pulled punches. They lack the balls to actually do anything meaningful. They give us the impression that Kirk may lose the Enterprise.. but no 10 minutes later Pike is dead and he get’s it back.

          I guess all he needed was to be yelled at a bit. That’s all he really needed. Just yell at him for being too impulsive and not respecting the rules. He’ll change!

          • http://twitter.com/Schaudwen Schaudwen

            Khan was never a spoiler. They were telegraphing Khan since the moment they showed the first teaser trailer. Studios don’t get to treat something as obvious as the Khan plot as a ‘spoiler’ when they only way they can deny it is to outright lie.

            The only thing treating Khan as a spoiler accomplished was getting fanboys to defend the choice of casting on Benedict Cumberbatch as the unknown villain/Khan Noonien Signh (Even though the new timeline does not effect Khan’s origins), and to silence any bad press that casting cost them by fooling people into putting the discussion under a spoiler cut.

    • Morbo

      Couldn’t agree more! iron Man 3 was just a terrible movie, and Skyfall is vastly overrated with a silly script. That doesn’t mean Star Trek 2 is Oscar worthy, but it was certainly more enjoyable than these others. All three had unforgivable plot holes, but its a lot more tolerable when the overall experience is fun.

  • Nepetronic

    First episode in which I didn’t care about the review but about what was going to happen with Mr. Pinklett. This series is awesome. Greetings from Mexico :D

  • Harry Roberts

    “The Moopies” my sides…

    • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

      There was a lot to enjoy in this review. :)

  • Jew

    I’m a jew!

  • Charles

    Best part is 10:25 “I saved your life, Spock.” Errr, “You saved MY life, Spock.”

  • Daniel Bakke

    When I saw that the review had been uploaded, I immediately got a last minute ticket to a late night screening of the movie at our worst cinema, in their worst and smallest theatre, just so I could come home after and watch the review. Totally worth it – even though I had two emergency exit signs shining in my face, and a bimbo couple on a date sitting next to me, through the whole film.

  • adaMAntiumSpoon

    RLM reviews are more like analysis of film. I think a lot of people misinterpret their overall thoughts on any film since they blanket their reviews with A LOT of sarcasm, quips, and dark, brooding humour. They clearly say that this film has many great elements. More so than the ones that bog the movie down. It is a well constructed movie in their eyes, however their analysis of all the other elements (screenwriting, plot holes, cheese) don’t always go hand-in-hand with the film as a whole. They don’t hate this movie, they just hate what Hollywood has done to cherished franchises over the years, and new IP’s the like. The stank is on everything. And you cannot argue that most of the evidence they supply is not justifiably so.

    This is why I respect them so much. They have the balls to say “ya, general audiences are going to enjoy this movie. We even enjoyed this movie as a whole, but here are the problems we had with it.” If you have ever read any other film review, it usually boils down to a plot summary, character summary, and whether they liked it, or hated it. These guys give us 35 minutes of deep analysis into every little aspect. Camera angles, script schlock, hack fraud cinematography… what more can you ask for?

    The overall selling point of their reviews? They have fun, and they make us laugh. That’s all I want. RLM for congress!

    • Now I Get It

      “That’s all I want. RLM for congress!”

      Mike gives the filibuster, Jay runs the Library of Congress, Rich thrums his fingers on the button.

      • adaMAntiumSpoon

        Hahaha, yes, precisely! I was actually watching that Netflix original House of Cards when I wrote that. Forgive me, I was just caught up in how Spacey makes working for congress look like the most badass mofo job out there.

        • Now I Get It

          “Forgive me, I was just caught up….”

          Not at all. A playwright friend told me that he never listens to music while he writes, precisely because it influences, beyond his control, the composition of whatever scene he’s working on. The thing just runs away on him.

          In that vein, we can see why TV writers often say, in DVD commentaries, that as a series goes on they naturally begin to write an actor’s actual personality into his fictional character. Only in that case, it actually helps the composition; whereas how often does that happen in the making of a one-off film?

          Which is, in turn, what explains why, when we watch these franchise films, we always measure the movie against the original TV show that inspired it, and not the other way around. The TV show is just a better collaboration, artistically. In a movie, the cast might improve their chemistry over time, but if the writers are being switched out every time, or several times on the same film, then how good can the thing ever be?

          Case in point, RLM itself, which succeeds precisely because, however frequently it rotates its partners and players from segment to segment, they’re all pals who aren’t in continuous combat with the very people they’re depending on to share their labour.

          Anyway…forgive me this time; you just happened to push my lecture button.

    • William Shakesman

      Jay did not like the movie, and I’m pretty sure Rich didn’t think much of it either. They said so, unsarcastically.

  • Charon

    It’s okay guys…in our hearts, we all know that it took more thought to write this review than the entire script of Into Darkness. After seeing this pandering, scientifically-stunted schlock, I’m more than a little worried for the fate of Episode 7…

    • Phil Burkhill

      “scientifically-stunted schlock” sounds like Trek to me.

      • Starfleet Admiral

        We never tell the crew that they die when they get in the teleporter.

        • Starfleet Legal Office FAQ

          Well, we DO tell them we’re going to rip them into their constituent atoms and then assemble a replica of them on the planet, but no, we don’t use that word die, such an ugly word. Then there’s be all kinds of hand-wringing, bitching and moaning, hanging onto railings and door frames as they’re dragged to the transporter room and that’s just too much work.

          We did TRY a non-destructive scan and assembly of a copy on the planet – plenty of basic elements available on the ship so there’s no real material NEED to tear apart a person. We figured we could save money by cutting transporter use by 50% – why beam up the copy, right? – but sometimes resourceful copies would show up with a bone to pick or start fighting over peoples’ ex-fiances and again, just more work.

          So after the Starfleet accountants, lawyers, and actuaries went over all the various costs, it was found that just giving the tearing-to-constituent-atoms disclaimer and using the expression “beaming down to the planet” was the most cost-effective solution. So we went with that. You’ll notice the admirals always take shuttles.

      • whip

        Trite one liners that make little to no sense. That sounds like Phil Burkhill to me. In a nutshell.

  • No Name Given

    “Do I want Mike and Jay to talk about Star Trek for 45 minutes?”

    Nope. I want Mr. Plinkett to talk about Star Trek for 45 minutes because that’s what he does.

    • Dingus

      4 hours*

  • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

    Why didn’t the Enterprise just eject the warp core and blow it up to escape from the plot holes?…

    • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

      Also, this was a very entertaining episode to watch. :)

    • Alex Lee

      I guess they ran out of cores in ’09.

  • SkyDog

    The movie misused Benedict Cumberbatch similarly to how the TNG films misused Patrick Stewart – this actor is just begging for a verbally driven role to flex his theatre chops on, and they mainly just have him punching people. The man managed to be commanding with the material he was given and was totally believable, but his skills as a performer were shamefully underutilized by the lazy, pandering script. Having his physical lethality be matched by a brazen, romantic, and deadly egotism displayed in lengthy, detailed dialogue scenes would have been SO FUCKING GOOD. I mean seriously… You have Khan. Played. By Benedict fucking Cumberbatch…and HE DOESN’T MONOLOGUE?! So god damn disappointing..

    Jay and Rich’s point about how the Khan reveal fell flat because it wasn’t logical to the story being told was right on the mark about the writing attitude that dragged this film down..

    • whip

      Also agree. And I am a huge Cumberbatch fan.. despite that Jay may assume I just recently started to say I like him. But it’s not true. I discovered him in the first episode of Sherlock, years ago. And instantly became a fan of the series.

      Imaging him as Khan, before this, was quite exciting. Because I felt he could pull off a sort of flamboyant and over the top bad guy such as Khan always was. His Sherlock is bizarre and over the top and quite memorable and fun character.

      But no.. they make him an action movie machine guy.. very little dialogue.. lots of fighting.. It was all just so pointless and poor use of him. I’m kind of sorry that he is still alive at the end of the film. If this series can actually continue, you know they’ll trot him back out again. And I don’t think i could take it.

    • Baló Timár

      Does this guy do voice acting? If not, he should. I would kill to have his badass voice.

      • halfast

        He’s doing the voices for Smaug and the Necromancer in the Hobbit.

      • DeborahJozayt

        He does a lot of reading work for audio books, as well.

  • Notna

    Angry Rich Evans is great. Actually, any Rich Evans is great.

  • panzi

    Gah, I think I have to switch back to Firefox again. Everything is high pitched in Chrome (not in Firefox). You guys almost sound like smurfs.

    • whip

      Never had this problem in Chrome, ever. Not once. User error I think.

      • panzi

        It’s a reproducible problem many users have (I have it for every single audio file in Chrome, no matter if HTML5 audio or Flash). See this bug:
        https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=229918

        The bug only exists since Chrome 27 and seems to be fixed in SVN. So I hope there will be an update soon.

      • panzi

        PS: Don’t shout “user error” just because you don’t have the problem. I hate people that do this. Audio in Chrome is on and off buggy for years now!

  • Som

    Sooooooo while watching this review for the second time (cause i’ve no life) something occurred to me. If Khan had the time to put all his people into missiles without anybody knowing (assuming he had a team of highly skilled scientists working with him), why could he just revive them?…. i hate this film :P .. this review was an hour too short, there is so much crappyness to cover, then Worf fires at someone with his purple space bazooka….

  • William Stone

    Star Trek Into Darkness is pure big-budget action schlock.

    It has little else going for it. And here I’m attempting to speak not as a 50-year-old lifelong fan, but simply in terms of watching a movie that ought to make sense.

    STID makes no sense at all. The plot holes are huge and numerous:

    Khan hid his people inside photon torpedoes?! For a guy with a superior intellect, that would have to be just about the stupidest place you could put someone.

    If they told me tomorrow that they were going to kill my daughters, the very last place I’d put them would be inside something that will be launched from a submarine’s torpedo tubes.

    If the Enterprise could so easily contact Scotty via cell phone and Old Spock via videophone, why didn’t they contact the 23rd-century equivalent of CNN with the tapes of Admiral Marcus? Would it not give Kirk and Spock a rather massive negotiating point when they could just say to him, “Admiral, you can’t get away with it. Even if you kill us all, we’ve already sent the tapes to CNN. You’re done, period.”

    For that matter, instead of going on a rampage, why didn’t Khan himself just go to CNN? If he just wanted revenge, what better way than see Marcus dragged through the mud and his entire scheme implode when it becomes public knowledge?

    That’s just the beginning. Just to list all the plot holes would take pages. Nothing makes sense, from beginning to end.

    There are a couple of character moments that bugged me. When Spock mind-melded with Pike, I assumed it was to use some Cool Vulcan Mind Technique to help ease his passing. Turns out that Spock just wanted to know what it felt like when you die.

    Ewwwwww.

    Kirk in a three-way with some anime cat-chicks? Oh, please, come on. That’s not any Kirk I know, and it sure as hell ain’t any Starfleet Captain we’ve ever seen. This sort of thing was forgivable when he was just some horny jock cadet in the last film, but now that he’s a captain?

    Kirk sleeping with Christine Chapel? Great Ghu, does Starfleet have no regulations against screwing your subordinates? Every military, every government, and today every corporation has rules against that, and for the obvious reasons.

    Worse, Kirk doesn’t even remember screwing Chapel. Apparently he’s been sleeping with so many Enterprise crew members that he can’t even keep them straight.

    Ewwwwwwww.

    Then there’s the “science” if you can call it that. It’s a problem with action movies since the 1980s: they simply can’t observe realistic physics when it comes to simple human anatomy.

    In real life, when you fall or jump from a great height, you don’t just roll with it and come up standing. Usually you die. If you don’t die, you wind up in the hospital.

    In this film, all the normal humans fall or jump from heights that should kill them. They do it over and over. Kirk shouldn’t have died from radiation, he should’ve never made it to the warp core. He fell so many times in ways that should have killed him …

    And Chekov, a scrawny kid of 17, holding the combined weight of two adult men while the gravity changed orientation repeatedly?

    Puh-leeze.

    I also couldn’t get over the fact that they beamed Uhura onto a moving vehicle in which the air is streaming around her at high speed. And she’s wearing a minidress.

    Apparently Abrams has never observed the effect of wind on dresses, since Uhura’s isn’t instantly whipped up to her chest. It’s a small point, but it took me out of the moment because it suddenly looked like she was standing in a controlled environment that was unlike where she should have been standing.

    Beyond simple physics of the everyday world, there’s science in general. Star Trek is still science fiction, right? So why is every scientific principal on every level simply ejected when the story demands it? It happens over and over.

    Khan escapes via some kind of personal transwarp transporter. Ok, let’s assume that this is even possible using Old Scotty’s formula, it begs this simple question:

    Why are spaceships used at all?

    If you can beam yourself halfway across the galaxy using a hand-held model, why use spaceships? People and freight can simply be beamed around the Federation.

    You certainly don’t need starships for exploration. Just suit up in some kind of all-purpose environment suit and beam anywhere you haven’t yet gone.

    And that’s just the transporters. There are no rules any more, other than the science must work the way the plot demands.

    This also gets into another plot hole. When Khan has beamed himself to Q’onos, why not just call the Klingons and say:

    “Hey, guys, we’ve got an escaped criminal at large on your planet. He’s really dangerous, so when you go after him, make sure you’re heavily-armed. Officially, we’d like him back; but if you have to kill him, nobody’s going to shed any tears.”

    I can’t imagine the Klingons teaming up with Khan. Even if he didn’t kill a bunch of them in the process of being “captured,” they’d see him for the duplicitous a-hole that he is in this film. He’d last ten minutes.

    Then there are the cameos: Chris Doohan as the transporter operator works. Nimoy as Old Spock is totally gratuitous. This is the guy who declined to be in Generations because he correctly determined that it was just a cameo with nothing particularly useful for Spock to do that advanced the story. He was right: you can see exactly where they gave his lines to Scotty or Chekov, and it doesn’t matter in the slightest.

    I guess this just goes to show that anybody will change their mind when you write them a large enough check.

    Also, why has Old Spock taken a vow to never reveal the events of his timeline? This one is now dramatically different than his. Even if you discount the obvious impact of the loss of Vulcan andtwelve billion individuals, all of the technology is far more advanced. This is no longer Spock’s timeline, and there’s no reason not to divulge what he knows.

    Think of the lives that could be saved if they knew about the Doomsday Machine, or the Giant Space Amoeba, or some of the YAGLAs they’ve got scattered around.

    And why in Ghu’s purple fingers would he not warn them about the Borg?!

    Then there’s Khan. I won’t get into the differences from the original character that bothered me (which are many). His whole existence is a huge plot hole.

    He’s from “300 years ago.” The year in STID is 2259. Specifically, it’s 2259.55 — or by the new reckoning precisely February 24, 2259.

    He’s from 1959?! How does that work?

    See, there’s a way to work Khan into the new timeline. In fact, it works even better than a 1990s Eugenics Wars that never happened. It goes like this:

    In the early 21st Century, a number of Muslim extremist groups, realizing that they couldn’t match the West in terms of military technology, turned to eugenics. They created a bunch of test-tube supermen. Said supermen caused trouble by the middle of the 21st Century and fled Earth.

    But since Hollywood is filled with gutless wonders who won’t say a bad thing about any aspect of Islam, we got a white Khan from 1959.

    I must mention Khan’s Deus Ex Machina blood, so badly-telegraphed to the audience with the tribble. Did anyone not see that coming?

    Furthermore, now that McCoy can synthesize a syrum, does that mean that everyone in the 23rd century can now be immortal?!

    Where does the last act of the film take place? When the Enterprisedrops out of warp, it seems to be far enough away from Earth to be a problem, yet soon they’re near the Moon and finally at Earth.

    If they’re that close to Earth, it again begs the question: why not call CNN? Or issue a distress call to a planet teeming with spacecraft?

    There’s yet another science problem with being so close to Earth. The Enterprise is disabled and drifting, with little but thrusters to maneuver. She drifts past the Moon and gets to Earth in a matter of minutes, a trip that takes days with our current technology.

    Trust me, if they didn’t take care to slow down, the Apollo astronauts would have smacked into the planet so hard they’d’ve created a nice crater.

    At the speed that Enterprise makes the trip, the crew should have been turned to jelly in the first moment of an extinction-level event.

    And don’t even get me started on what should have happened to the Vengeance …

    This film is just plain ol’ action schlock with Abrams trusting that chicks in bikinis and explosions will draw your attention away from it. The plot’s identical to the last film: Kirk learns to be a leader, Spock gets mad, somebody wants revenge, and all the other characters have things to do.

    Plain ol’ big-budget action schlock. Meh.

    • whip

      AMEN. Well said and excellent post.

    • Mark Bisone

      The lack of any kind of “CNN”, mass communications in general, or any
      other public or private institutions other than the one the main
      characters participate in, is the plague of current storytelling. This
      is a problem everywhere, but particularly in sci-fi, where the
      characters having to grapple with public perception and political
      considerations can make a story more interesting, not less.

      In
      something like a “Star Wars” style fantasy, the lack of a press corps or mass communication hardly
      matters, since it’s basically a fairy tale to begin with. That’s
      why it stunk when Lucas tried to dip half-a-toe into “political intrigue” with his garbage prequels. You can take the pure dive
      into fantasy and let the storytelling be all about metaphysical
      questions, character conflicts and emotions. Or you can build a tangible, believable sci-fi
      reality with analogs to our experience of the world that explore contemporary ethical and moral quandaries.

      YOU CAN’T DO BOTH.

      But, just like Lucas, in this Stark Trek movie Abrams, Lindelof & Co
      stick their cinematic dicks halfway in by making of bunch lame, blurry and ineffectual
      references to Terrorism-and-Militarism-and-Stuff(TM). It’s an
      obvious attempt to make their dumb action movie superficially seem to be “about”
      something real and complicated, but it doesn’t even remotely work as because the writers throw the rest of our complicated, messy experience of
      our own world straight in the trash. The references are so tenuous that they
      barely connect to reality to begin with. Osama Bin Laden was not a superman, and he wasn’t so much after pure “vengeance”. Evil though he was, he had several tangible socio-political and economic goals (mainly rebuilding the Caliphate and purging Islam of what he saw as heresy). The mujahideen weren’t supermen, either; they were largely illiterate goatherds and angst-ridden, sexually-frustrated Saudi teens. And while it’s true that we helped them out in the 80′s, their main tactical advantage over the Russians was the fact that they occupied some of the most logistically difficult, inhospitable Mad Max territory on Earth, with no virtually infrastructure to capture and no political authority to sign treaties with…

      Oh, but wait, that’s messy reality. J.J. says never mind, ‘cuz 9/11 was an inside job and Benedict Arnold looks weird in an extreme close-up and WE are the real TERRORISTS after all, right????!!!!!!

      It’s so fucking stupid and free of real insight that it’s terrifying. Worse, the reference-fest designed in a way to trick the brains of dummies into believing it’s smart commentary. “It’s about the War on Terrorism…. and stuff!” Meanwhile, they ignore even the most basic elements of that war, which is how the constant flow of information changes the political realities of the people waging it, and limits the kinds of moves they can make. A simple news report would have drastically altered and destroyed all of Admiral Robocop’s plans in an instant, just like it would have destroyed Palpatine’s. But instead of building the difficulty of spreading the news into the story, they just… pretend there’s no news.

      To take just one example of how this can be
      done right, look at something like “Robocop.” In that world, both the bad guys and the good guys are
      largely rational, recognizable people who are bound by the limitations
      of elements external to the story. Dick Jones isn’t on a grand quest
      for vengeance. He wants money, and his actions are complicated by the
      threat of bad press, the votes of the board, the competition of his
      peers, the legal system, etc. To get what can’t just build an army of
      Ed-209s to run around New Detroit shooting everyone until the citizens
      agree to worship him. Real life is more complicated than that, even for the bad guys.

      In sci-fi, it’s *good* when the messy reality impedes the
      character’s behavior, because it reminds us that things like this it
      really can and do happen. Unless the world of the fiction is already a totalitarian state (which ST world is not), pretending social institutions outside of Star Fleet don’t removes exactly the kind of connection to reality that sci-fi is supposed to make. That’s actually worse than all of the other nonsense — the flubotinum and Tribble blood and “cold fusion” — because it directly relates to the story’s larger point about the humanity. This story has no point or meaning. It’s just a standard action-er with some very mild, cartoony characterization and a shitload of references to better work.

      That said, Jay and Mike are right about it being an acceptable (if totally forgettable) action movie. Some of the action set pieces work pretty well, and the movie looks nice for the most part.

      • whip

        Great post Mark. I’ve been hit or miss with you till now. But this post helped me to clear up any confusion in my head. You are a bright and thoughtful person.

        • Mark Bisone

          You forgot to say handsome.

          (But, thank you.)

      • William Stone

        One of the interesting things that’s started to motivate me about my entertainment is this:

        I am now one of the “walking wounded” of family law in the United States. As a nine-year divorcee with two wonderful daughters, I no longer have the cash to spend on anything remotely resembling a frivolous expenditure. Before I was divorced, I had the luxury of thinking nothing of spending $20 or more for a movie. Today, that represents potentially a week’s groceries if I’m frugal.

        And I don’t have the luxury of being anything other than extremely frugal.

        I took a chance on Iron Man 3 and got burned. The film left a bad taste in my mouth because all the henchmen were disabled American veterans. I’m a college professor with a lot of veteran students, and it bothered me intensely that these people were portrayed as being willing to commit terrorist acts simply to recover lost limbs.

        I didn’t take such a chance with STID. I grabbed a torrent of the film on its opening night. I wasn’t thrilled, but it didn’t leave a horrible taste in my mouth the way that Iron Man 3 did. I resolved to fork over the cash to see it at a less-expensive matinee in IMAX 3D, on the assumption that what little it offered would be better in that format.

        I was wrong. I should never have paid for this film, in any format. I don’t have the cash to spare.

        I’d also point out that I say this as a life-long, 48-year-old Star Trek fan whose earliest memory is of the Mugatu in “A Private Little War” in its first run on NBC.

        This film is simply goa shi on multiple levels.

        I wanted to like the film. It’s simply too stupid to like, except to appreciate the ‘splosions in IMAX 3D. And it’s not worth the cash even in that format.

        I hope that Man of Steel isn’t an enormous frak-up, but I despair that it probably will be.

      • William Shakesman

        Wow. I hadn’t even realized the 72 torpedoes reference.

        But my brain did.

    • DickTickler

      tl;dr
      No one cares.

      • William Stone

        ts;dc

  • Mark Bisone

    Mike should do a short doc called “The United States of KHAAAAAAAAAAN!”

  • iamtravis182

    Mike is totally withholding his deeper analysis of the movie in order to make a Plinkett review. The first part of the review you can totally tell that he is biting his tongue.

    • SkyDog

      Come to think of it, you’re probably right. It initially struck me as curious how little he had to say, but looking at it now I can see practically see the gears working away in his head.

      • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

        Are you saying he’s a cyborg? I wouldn’t mind that. I wonder if he’s a secret asshole like David in Prometheus.

  • ciagw

    I can’t stop scrolling back to the part where Mike does the obnoxious laugh at “Benedict Cabbagepatch.” Needs a 10minute youtube loop.

    • JarJarSkywalker

      I thought Jay’s reaction to the laugh was great too

      • ciagw

        Agreed, that has to be in the loop.
        “What did everyone think of Benedict Cabbagepatch?”
        “HaHAHAHAHA”
        “Oh my god.”

  • andrew

    This is the first review i have seen which at least attempts to articulate the problems with the new star trek film / franchise that i had also felt. it is refreshing to hear these opinions vented in a objective manner, whilst also being very entertaining, and strangely, more satisfying then the film itself. I have been watching for years now, and plan to keep watching it into the future. Keep up the good work guys!

  • whip

    I’ve been actively following and posting on this since they posted the video. I’ve already said a lot of what I wanted to say in other posts and responses. But having read much of what is here, let’s try yet again with some talk that people haven’t gotten to yet.

    Another problem with this movie is the complete lack of consequences. When Kirk got dressed down by Pike, and took his command away again.. I actually was pretty wrapped up in the scene for a minute. Wow! Ok, so this movie may actually have consequences and depth? So is Pike going to be the captain in this story, and Kirk still has things to learn? How is this going to play out.

    I was actually distracted by this for a moment, it took me out of the movie, as I was thinking through the possibilities.

    But no, 10 minutes later Pike is dead and Kirk gets command back. The entire point of it all was just the few minutes of Pike lecturing Kirk. I guess the writers felt that that was all that needed to be said. Kirk is a genius and all. He only needed to be told he was fucking up.. and he’ll get it. We don’t need to have him actually suffer any consequence. He’s the star!

    Then they end up at Klingon homeworld. We are told that things with the Klingons have been messy already. Admiral Marcus is sure war is coming.

    Humans show up on their homeworld. Kill an entire platoon of soldiers and some ships. Wreak havoc.. and leave… and… ?

    What happened? The end of the movie is a year later. Still no sign of that Klingon attack. I guess they don’t care ..

    But the biggest offender of all is the death of Kirk. This was so hamfisted and stupid as to be insulting.

    This Kirk and Spock have not had an entire 5 year mission in space together, plus more decades as friends.. Spocks death in Wrath actually meant something. That movie is about Kirk coming to grips with getting older, and having to face a no win scenario. And actually losing someone close to him. And no one knew then that Spock would be back. For all intents and purposes he was dead, forever.

    This movie just takes that entire sequence, and pulls stupid role reversal on it, to try to trick us. They have this emotional moment between two characters who still barely know each other, and have little reason to like each other. It was just hamfisted means of trying to make them feel closer together.

    And then boom, Kirk is alive again 10 minutes later. No real consequence.

    It was so clearly just a complete theft of the sequence from Wrath of Khan, with a “twist” of role reversal.. JUST FOR THE SAKE OF BEING COOL! Oh look, it’s a remake of that classic scene! BUT OMG KIRK DIES! AND SPOCK YELLS KHAANN!!

    But if you are truly rational you realize this was just fan service of the worst kind. This is like a pathetic parody movie at this point. Like the ones RLM routinely lambastes. It’s like one step away from a full on, Satruday Night Live style of comedic parody.

    Why do some of you want to let them get away with that? They are doing nothing but pandering to you. They are introducing things you know, in hopes you just splooge all over and go “IT’S SO COOL!”. Which you all dutifully did.

    But it lacks any substance or understanding of the importance of those scenes.

    It’s just fan wanking service. And that’s it. Jay was right on the money when he talked about how this movie is a series of set pieces and fan wanking ideas they had, and they played connect the dot on the plot points to get there.

    Kirks death is meaningless and has no impact. It’s just a silly, cutesy role reversal on Star Trek 2, designed to make the dumb masses go “Ohhh WOW!!!”.

    Don’t you want to be part of the smarter masses who see through this pandering?

    No, some of you are quite happy to just be the dunces who shovel popcorn in your face, quite disconnected from any sense of reality or plot understanding because OH LOOK SHINY SPACE SHIPS FIGHTING PEOPLE JUMPING AROUND AND PUNCHING OMG EXCITING.

    • decerto

      I love this rant, and I totally agree. I just rewatched Wrath of Kahn. Hadn’t seen it for a few years and I was pleasantly surprised at how engaging it was, how many thematic elements the writers included, and how both the emotional and action scenes were well earned. I think I’ll just stick with old Star Trek, thank you very much. Oh, if anyone’s interested, Confused Matthew does a pretty nice review of all the thematic elements included in Kahn, (and I hope no one minds the name drop). His review made me appreciate how rich the older stuff is.

    • DoctorKillpatient

      In all honesty every movie panders to a degree to its target audience. Star Trek movies are made for Star Trek-fans, so why shouldn’t they pander.

      Also Kirk’s death is far from meaningless. He gets a long preaching from Pike, that when he goes off flying around the universe and ignoring every Starfleet regulations, he is playing with the lives of his crew. When he gets the Enterprise back, it seems like a lucky fluke (though it is thanks to Pike’s death).

      Maybe the movie was missing a scene where Kirk had a chance to reflect on Pike’s words and make a promise (to Spock for example) that this time things would be different.

      As Kirk is then dragged into the schemes of Admiral Marcus and has to face against Khan – both of them threaten to kill him and his crew – the situation seems to get more and more desperate for Kirk. At one point he is almost on his knees begging for the lives of his crew. And in the end he has to sacrifice his life to save his crew.

      Khan also contrasts this nicely, since he seems to be caring about nothing else but the lives of his crew.

      I believe this is called an “arc” (nudge-nudge-wink-wink) – Kirk learns this lesson by accepting the harshest of penalties. Wrath was about Kirk becoming older and having to accept the loss of his best friend, Darkness is about Kirk sacrificing his life to save others. Kirk could have very easily sent some nameless redshirt into the reactor (or Scotty), but he chose to go himself.

      And while you see Spock screaming “Khan” as only a twist and a role reversal, to me there is much more to this. Death and dying are the keywords.

      The movie is about Spock coming to grips with his human emotions when it comes to death. He mindmelds with Pike when he dies and has to listen to Uhura’s laments about not caring how it would affect her if Spock would die. All this is spurred into action early on in the movie when Spock is willing to die inside that volcano, simply because he doesn’t want Kirk to break Prime Directive. In the first movie his mothers death almost didn’t seem to register with him at all.

      Only when Kirk dies, can Spock let go of that Vulcan emotional control, and express a human emotion someone would experience if he has seen his best friend die through the actions of others – ANGER.

      Spock shouting “Khan” was signifying that, finally, Spock had in essence become human and all it took was his best friends life. When he is running after Khan and then beating him into submission, there is nothing left of that Vulcan emotional control and logic.

      In Wrath Kirk screamed “Khan” when Khan had outsmarted him and left him stranded, in Darkness Spock screamed “Khan” when Khan’s actions had forced Kirk to sacrifice his life. This is much more poignant in Darkness than it was in Wrath.

      I know it’s cool at this time an age to differentiate yourself from the grey masses, who seem to go with the flow, by concocting a diametrically opposite opinion of your own compared to theirs – “Look, there’s a popular movie out there, let’s go and rant about how everybody is stupid for liking it and I’m special for hating it”. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be objective.

      I’m not saying Darkness is the greatest ST movie ever made or it was better than Khan. It is clear how this movie was going to end up to everyone who saw the previous one. Abrams and the crew know what they are doing and it works – both movies are critically and financially successful. And when it comes to Hollywood, this is (sadly) all that matters.

    • William Shakesman

      Exactly. In Wrath of Khan they had the balls to kill a main character. Yes, they backtracked on it but that was in an entire other movie.

      Here they cowarded out, as expected. No, Pike is not a main character.

  • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

    i agree with you guys about benedict cumberbatch. How its weird that he has had no exposure in the US until a few months ago and now everyone is raving mad about it. Although I will say he was excellent as sherlock holmes in the BBC series sherlock.

    • whip

      I have to reject their assertion.. at least for myself.

      I became aware of Cumberbatch with the very first episode of Sherlock. I’m a long time fan of BBC programming, going back to my childhood. Grew up on Doctor Who and Black Adder and Blake’s 7 and stuff like that. Continued to like and watch BBC all through adulthood. Red Dwarf.. Absolutely Fabulous..The Office.. Doctor Who reboot.. all great stuff. Hell I could go on all day with Shows..

      I knew about Sherlock while it was being filmed, and was quite intrigued to watch it. And saw the first episode within a week of it’s initial release.

      Cumberbatch is a very talented and strong actor. This movie completely misused his talents. Horribly.

      • whip

        LOL I’m genuinely curious why I got thumbs down here. I mean, I didn’t say anything wrong. Just expressed an opinion. Or do you think I’m lying and really just jumped the Cumberbatch bandwagon last week?

        Or.. as is mostly likely.. is it that my scathing comments about how bad this movie is have cut too deeply with some of you, so you are thumbing me down out of spite? LOL

        • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

          people are just haters.

      • Yukons

        Black Adder!! I have a cunning plan, m’lord.

  • leeory jenkins

    thank you so much! now i don’t have to suffer through that movie.

  • http://twitter.com/Markavian Markavian

    Guys – I think your show was probably more enjoyable then going and seeing the new ST movie. Thanks for taking your time to talk about movies and making me laugh.

    • joe

      That’s right, Jay.

  • Sonic Death Monkey

    Biggest fuckup with the nu Trek? They introduce the concept of transwarp beaming, where people can now beam themselves halfway across the galaxy, negating THE ENTIRE CONCEPT OF THE SERIES….YOU KNOW…TREKKING TO THE STARS! With this technology there is practically no reason to trek anywhere in a spacecraft. And why did they have to take a starship to the Klingon homeworld to pursue Khan and risk war when they could have just beamed there? A sign of idiot writers doing things because they are expedient to the plot without thinking of the bigger implications.

    • whip

      The only reason he was transwarped to Klingon homeworld is OMG WE WANNA SEE KLINGONS IT’LL BE COOL.

      THAT’S IT.

      It would have made far more sense for him to warp to a spaceship in orbit, and then fly off and wreak havoc of some kind.

      But they were determined to show Klingons. Because, you know.. the next one is gonna have Klingons! And it’ll be COOOL!

      Wait.. what? The Klingon homeworld is upwards of 90 light years from Earth? So… what?

      It’s so obvious that Abrams and Lindelof and crew just sat around in a room
      going “Wouldn’t it be cool if…?” comments and then tried to paste them all together.

      I don’t even try to act like they purposely muddy the action to keep you from thinking about it. I think they don’t actually think about it. More than “wouldn’t it be cool if…”. Then make it happen.

      Hell, anyone who saw the commentary for the 2009 Star Trek DVD knows, they already toyed with the idea of the Botany Bay showing up at the end of THAT movie. They already knew THEN that they were going to tackle Khan next.

      Not that they were too lazy to make anything new. They literally are just doing what seems “cool” and fan service. That’s it. It’s not lazy. They are as much stupid fans as anyone else. And doing what they think will be cool and fun, and damn logic.

      • SkyDog

        Maybe one day there will be a movie with this level of production quality and budget written by actual storytellers. One can dream…

        • Nathan Craft

          high hopes for Pacific Rim

          • guest

            High HIGH hopes for pacific rim, now that Micheal Bey has mocked it. I can’t think of a higher endorsement.

            The one review I could find of a pre-screening said;

            ‘Be prepared to be transmorgrified back into a 12 year old… and then pee your pants with joy’

      • http://www.sunnystrangers.blogspot.com/ Bryan M. White

        The funny thing is too, they did NOTHING with this “cool” stuff. They went to all that trouble to introduce Klingons just have them stand around for two minutes and get killed. And what did they even do with Khan really? It’s just knocking references off a check list. Really bad.

    • Butthurt Fanboy

      Except that people only beamed a few light years. If you can beam a subspace radio signal across a few light years, then you should be able to beam a person.

      In the Stargate TV shows, they have wormholes and still use starships. Ships have their uses.

      • Sonic Death Monkey

        A few light years!? Is that all!? Bullshit. With a wormhole, you still need to travel through it in some kind of craft and navigate to the planet. With this, you can go straight from planet to planet without venturing into space at all. The mission of the Enterprise is to explore strange new worlds and civilizations, which could now be done sans Enterprise, sans TREKKING. It’s called STAR TREK for god’s sake. This dumb fucking idea was introduced in Trek 09 when future Spock gave Scotty the formula invented by future Scotty, just so they had a convenient way to get Kirk back on the Enterprise. Dumb, lazy writing. And now that Scotty has this formula, something that surely would make him the most renowned engineer in the known universe, and allow the Federation to dominate the galaxy, what does he do with it? Fucking nothing.

      • William Stone

        Stargate used starships where gate travel was impossible or where they needed firepower.

        With transwarp beaming, there’s nowhere that the transporter can’t take you. Ships might be useful for firepower, but that’s it.

    • William Shakesman

      Seriously. If Khan beamed directly from Earth to Klingon why didn’t they just do the same with the team of troops to capture him?

  • joe

    GODDOMOT Lindelof, STOP RUINING EVERYTHING

    • whip

      The guy really only knows how to create magic, deus ex machina style devices. That’s all he’s got. I mean, first all the Lost mumbo jumbo (can’t believe I defended that series). Then the magic black goo in Prometheus. Now Khan’s magic blood.

      He doesn’t care about things that make sense. He just cares what seems “cool” and doesn’t give any critical thought.

      The biggest problem with the dumbing down of movies and television is that it also further dumbs down culture, and produces idiots like Lindelof who think they are clever and talented solely based on the fact that they make “hit” shows or movies.

      I often was one to argue about the whole “Do movies and entertainment reflect our culture and reality, or does it have an affect our culture and reality” and more and more I think it’s the latter.

      I used to excuse dumbed down, idiotic stuff as hey.. they are just appealing to the masses ,the masses are dumb. That’s life. But more and more I think that such things actually drive the situation worse and make things worse overall.

      • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

        That’s too long for me to bother reading, but if you’re saying Damon Lindelof sucks, then I’ll agree.

      • Butthurt Fanboy

        Yeah, there wasn’t a single deus ex machina in Trek before 2009. By the way, Khan has magic recuperative powers in Space Seed.

        You’re just full of yourself, aren’t you?

      • Lancelof

        Amen. Every time I see the name “Damon Lindelof” attached to a film or television project, my heart sinks. He absolutely ruined Lost, he absolutely ruined Prometheus, and while he hasn’t entirely ruined Star Trek yet (due, I suspect, only to the fact that the other two writers won’t let him), he’s hard at work trying.

        Lindelof is not just a poor writer overall, he insists on ruining all of the franchises I love. It’s really frustrating, every time I get excited about some new project it takes a turn for the worse right around the time Lindelof’s name becomes attached.

        That’s exactly what happened with the Alien prequel–which Lindelof changed into a prequel that’s not a prequel (and significantly dumbed down in the process). And will it all ever make any sense? Maybe we’ll find out in the next movie. Or the next, or the next…

      • Mark Bisone

        “They just lack the desire to.”

        I think instead of “desire”, you probably mean “incentive.”

        But, otherwise, yes.

    • Saruma

      To be fair, I think very few of us would have heard of Red Letter Media had Lindelof not drawn attention to the Plinkett Phantom Menace review. Doesn’t excuse bad writing on his part, but I cut him some slack because of this.

      • Lancelof

        I found Red Letter Media due to Prometheus. I was so blown away by what they had to say because it summed up so many of my own problems with that horrid movie. It was a cathartic experience.

  • Captain Prickhard

    PURPLE SPACE BAZOOKA by Damon Lindelof

    • whip

      I’ll see it only if it features Zephram Cockring.

      • Percy Gryce

        More ST porn names. Excellent, pip, pip!

  • Seabiscuit

    can you guys please please review “The Great Gatsby?!” that movie is a fucking comedy goldmine, I laughed my ass off the first 45 minutes (until it became apparent that they blew their budget and all the style left the film). It’s just horribly awesome, tonely off, hammy shitty acting. I didn’t know you could fuck up such a good story with 130 million dollar budget!

  • vontux

    I recently had a friend tell me she had never heard of Wrath of Khan, that made me sad, so I did this: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/distribute-copies-of-wrath-of-khan

  • William Stone

    After wading through the effects-laden tripe that was STID, I looked up the first full episode of Vic Mignona’s Star Trek Continues.

    It might not be the episode I’d’ve made, but it’s clear that Vic and company, unlike Abrams and company, understand what made Star Trek special.

    And it wasn’t the ‘splosions.

    (Oh, and ten points if you get who’s playing the computer voice before the credits. Note, too, that Nurse Chapel has been replaces with Nurse Temple.)

    http://www.startrekcontinues.com/star-trek-continues-episode-1-pilgrim-of-eternity/#.UaGGXNKbOeQ

  • Gay

    You two spent 45 minutes saying nothing of substance except “Old Spock shouldn’t have been in the movie.”

    Stop being smug, pretentious cunts.

    • obvious troll

      Couldn’t you make your trolling just a tiny bit less obvious?

      • Gay

        Not trolling.

        I’m a big fan of Mike and Jay. At first, I thought they were being sarcastic (as they did with the Half in the Bag Skyfall review) but I soon realized that the smug, nitpicky cuntness was sincere. This review basically droned on for “2 hours” (as Mike joked) with few legitimate criticisms of the film except for minor plot nitpicks and criticisms of an action movie for being fast-moving.

        If you watch the Plinkett review of “Star Trek 2009″, Mike’s analysis basically boils down to “it’s a dumb action movie with plot holes that doesn’t follow the Star Trek mythology at all, but is still awesome.” How is this movie different?

        It’s a fun movie. Stop being dinknipples.

        • guest

          “I’m a big fan of Mike and Jay, but I don’t agree with their opinion on this movie so now they’re cunts.”

          They mention the sloppy storytelling, the over-reliance on fan service and pulling elements from other Star Trek material, the fact that all the character arcs are exactly the same as the arcs from the first film, and weak motivations of almost every character. That’s a lot more than just some “minor plot nitpicks.”

          Would you care to come up with a more insightful analysis of WHY the movie is good in your opinion, other than the overly simplistic comment that “it’s fun?”

          • Gay

            No.

          • vontux

            I’ve noticed a trend when it comes to fans of the Abrams films, when others criticize the films and present an argument for why they don’t like them they tend to resort to personal insults instead of either presenting a cogent argument or just accepting that some people don’t care for the film and that is A-OK.

          • bassbait

            You could take out all references to Abrams Star Trek from your sentence and it’d still be true…

            “Fans of ____ either resort to personal attacks of critics of ____, or accept that not everybody likes _____.”

            Seriously, try it, it works for everything.

          • vontux

            You mean that the Internet has lots of assholes on it, and irrational immature fanboys & fangirls? Impossible.

          • Gay

            Actually, obvious_troll was more on the mark. Although my dismissal of this review is sincere, I mostly just wanted to stir the blood a little and see how many snarky, high-horse rebuttals would surface. Quite a few, apparently!

            But now I must retire. Fellow RedLetterMedia fans (and Mike and Jay), no hard feelings. You’re all still cool. This was all in good fun (at least for me), and I hope no butts were permanently hurt. Love always,

            ~ Gay

          • john strandwitz

            It’s because JJ Abrams now makes movies for the dumbshits who beat him up in high school.

          • duh

            Hmmm, sounds exactly like all the Nolan fanboys

          • decora

            i noticed that when it came to fans of the Khmer Rouge, they tended to chop peopel’s heads off.

  • RPK

    Star Trek Into Darkness (and the rebooted franchise in general) is much easier to enjoy once you realize they are nothing more than big , dumb action summer movie blockbusters.

    Once you accept this and the fact that the Star Trek many of us grew up with is long gone, you may even find some enjoyment out of it.

    IMO it does action very well. Plot wise it’s not great, but compare it to some other summer action movies (Fast 6/ Transformers), and I would would say it’s at least better than those films.

    • Cameron Vale

      I think of Nemesis as the death of Star Trek, and Star Trek 2009 as a funeral for Star Trek, from one of those cultures where they party hard at funerals. I don’t know what that makes this new one though.

      • whip

        Someone digging up the corpse and urinating on it?

    • john strandwitz

      It kinda IS those films…

  • nooodles

    OK have to wade in here! Fan for almost 30. Favourite film VGGGGGerrr, plus Star Trek V1 – saw it when a Goth in Cardiff. Bowie’s wife still left good memories for me! Here goes: Star Trek was dying – anyone seen remember Enterprise or Nemesis??????? This film was pure escapism. I loved it. Yes it does in future need some more cerebral moments – what is it to be human moments. But for now – chill out everyone.

    • john strandwitz

      Jump on the idiot bandwagon and run right over my Star Trek with it! lol

      • nooodles

        John – ‘your Star Trek’ is Nemesis? I get what Mike and Jay are saying. I understand where you are coming from. I enjoyed the movie. I used to watch the original series with my Father – in the 70′s. There was no aspect of the film that you enjoyed?

  • Joe

    I think Khan knew to surrender in order to prevent the missiles from being launched when Kirk disclosed that they had exactly 72. This alerted Khan that this specific payload was the one that contained his crew. This way, whether the missiles were armed or not is irrelevant. That’s the only thing I can redeem about the plot that you criticized.

  • fuckyou

    These guys complain too much. During the movie my eyes started to hurt about the 3rd time they rolled back into my head but the movie is good.

    • Cameron Vale

      Well fuck you too!

    • john strandwitz

      They didn’t complain enough, imo.

  • Poodles

    Those guys are HACKS! Maybe they’re just jelly of JJ because they’re stuck making movies about gorillas and eggplants instead of glorious TREK.

    • john strandwitz

      These guys could make a better Star Trek movie with $50.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jonah-Falcon/525044162 Jonah Falcon

    J.J. Abrahms: And again, it’s like poetry, it’s sort of, they rhyme. Every stanza kind of rhymes with the last one. Hopefully it’ll work.

    • john strandwitz

      But it didn’t. It worked in Super 8, his only good movie. The reason it was good? Steven Spielberg helped make it.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jonah-Falcon/525044162 Jonah Falcon

        Again. Mr. Plinkett Star Wars reviews. George Lucas.

    • Désirée San Pedro

      What poe

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jonah-Falcon/525044162 Jonah Falcon

        (sigh) You didn’t watch any of the Star Wars Mr. Plinkett reviews, did you.

        • Désirée San Pedro

          Sorr

  • GoDFaDDa

    Right on, and you didn’t even get to one of the biggest “what’s the point” elements of the movie – Carol Marcus.

    • whip

      Fan service on name recognition alone, and association with Wrath of Khan.

      And all they used her for? Shot of her in her undies. And some kind of emotional blackmail against the Admiral.

    • Bill

      My issue is not with her appearance, but with the plot reason given for her appearance. Specifically, Carol Marcus forged and lied her way aboard the Enterprise, likely with full knowledge of the sensitive and dangerous nature of the Enterprise’s mission, because…her dad usually allows her unfettered access to files related to Starfleet’s programs, but he blocked her access to the files relating to the special torpedoes, and she was curious.

    • Percy Gryce

      Eye candy. And then Lindelof apologied for that (of all things).

      Never apologize–it only encourages them.

  • http://www.facebook.com/alexandriaksanders Alexandria Sanders

    Here’s a question….after Kirk, Scotty, and Kahn get onto the giant ship, everyone on the bridge is killed and Kahn takes it over….are we left to believe that only Kahn was left on this ship? I mean, there were lots of people there to fight them just after they boarded. So clearly there were more than just the people on the bridge. But did no one else on the giant ship attempt to stop Kahn from crashing into a city? If it was anything like the Enterprise there’d be tons of people down in the engine room who could shut down the engine. Or at the least break into the bridge and shoot Kahn? But conveniently, no one tries this. So, I’m assuming the audience is left to believe the only passengers on this giant military ship where its clear you need a huge crew of at least a few hundred people if not less to keep things in working order, only had the people on the bridge, a few security guards and the one security guard who got sucked out into space by Scotty. Just venting.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jonah-Falcon/525044162 Jonah Falcon

      Khan.

      • Tyler Sypherd

        Khaaan! Khaaaaaan!! KHAAAAAN!!!

    • Hank

      They said in the film that the ship was designed to operate off of a skeleton crew. In fact, the whole thing could be operated by just one person, a design feature Khan probably included himself. The only people who could have stopped him would have been those grunts Kirk and friends took out earlier.

    • Mantas

      They mentioned that the ship was modified to function with minimal crew. And it was mostly manned by private security – because Gen. Marcus didn’t want his schemes getting out.
      There are things to gripe about in the movie, this isn’t one of them.

      • William Shakesman

        Yes but are we to believe the ENTIRE crew was killed in the hallways as Khan Scottie and Kirk made their way to the bridge? We even see Kirk and Scottie knocking them out, and Kirk explicitly said the phasers were locked to stun to Khan’s disgust.

        So none of those people aside from the ones Khan super-punched and broke their spines or whatever are dead. At least a dozen people between the hallway and the bridge knocked out or stunned.

        But as with everything in this movie once it’s out of sight you’re not supposed to think about it again. Just look at the explosions and the shooting!

    • john strandwitz

      It’s as over complicated as it is simplistic, if that makes any sense. It has soooo many plot-holes I fear they may coalesce into a giant black hole, thus destroying the universe.

    • whocares

      Correction: Blown out

  • yu stu

    Remember when movies would suck they would stop making fucking sequels. Why does there have to be any more of these dumb fucking films? Why do people keep subsidizing these jerks who create this cgi-ridden, unoriginal shit?
    We don’t need 6 fucking fast and furious films. This didn’t even have to be called Star Trek. It should have been called ‘Summer Action Film – Wrath of Fuck You’, or ‘Get Your Wallet and Pay Us So We Keep Our Jobs’.

    • welcome to capitalism

      Advertisement and branding.That’s the sole reason for sequels.It’s easier to sell something that has a recognizable name than come up with a “hook” for every new product.Actual content is minimal,if there is any at all.And these are products from an assembly line.It’s the same principle like with big fast food industry chains.Or any consumer product made for the masses just for profits sake.
      Don’t you just love consumer society?

    • Daniel Nguyen-Phuoc

      It’s not about our individual opinions of the movies, really. It’s about how much money the movies make. If the studios return on their investment and make a tidy profit, they have enough reason to keep making the same kind of movies. That’s why we have freaking 6 Fast and Furious movies, which is more just depressing on a society level.

      • PegasusFantasy

        STID needs 380 WW millions to break even, at the very least.

        • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

          Studios get roughly 55% of ticket sales, so it’d need roughly $345 million to break even. That’s excluding any advertising.

    • Tomas P.

      Or you could accept the reality that it’s never going to happen and just enjoy the quality made films, even if not original. Or just don’t watch them.

  • Git Picker

    Couple of things I did notice about this movie that were pretty annoying. Everyone talks to damn fast so half the time you miss something and the plot does get confusing. So we can’t really blame Jay and Mike if they got a little confused when summarizing it. Case in point, Spock Prime shows up-why and from where? It might have been mentioned, but again, too much fast talking to the point where I can’t follow this stuff. To me that’s is more annoying than plot holes or how faithful the film is to TOS. But it seems to be a common problem in movies today. I think they’ve been over this in the past, but it bears repeating.
    I still found the movie entertaining, and I am only a casual Trek fan. But it certainly wasn’t without flaws.
    Is it brilliant? Nah. Is it terrible.? I don’t think so. Is it serviceable? Yes. Is it better than Michael Bay movies? Wouldn’t know. Better than Star Wars? Depends what you mean by “Star Wars.” Is it better than Prometheus? Depends what your meaning of “is” is.
    My point is, in the scheme of things, this movie isn’t high art. neither are any of the other ones I mentioned or indeed many of the films these guys review. Maybe it’s time they didn’t review some fan-driven blockbuster drivel and reviewed, I don’t know, Lawrence of Arabia, or the Godfather trilogy.

  • john strandwitz

    JJ Abrams has let me down again! It was like a terrible remake of Star
    Trek 2! I went into this with my expectations low but somehow JJ still
    disappointed me. The references to Star Trek 2 are as ham-fisted as a
    retarded boxer and half as entertaining. The muddled, kahnvoluted plot
    tries in vane to interest the viewer with twists and turns that make no
    sense. Moments that are supposed to fill you with awe and wonder
    inspire groans and sighs. I somewhat enjoyed the banter between the
    characters although the dialog is more of a “tip of the hat” to the old
    series and movies rather than new conversations between beloved
    characters. The actors play their parts well enough, but good
    performances don’t mean a thing if the story is weak. The special
    effects are amazing although JJ stills seems to be deeply in love with
    lens flare. And let me say this: Into Darkness doesn’t just reference
    seens and dialog from Star Trek 2, it outright reenacts them! It’s so
    forced you will actually lol. I was hoping for a cerebral storyline but
    was served the same plate of stupid that average Joe dumb**** eats with
    both hands.

    • Yukons

      Wise words. I’m glad you give credit to where it’s due, it’s not like this is a Mikey Bay movie or anything.

      The bad things about this movie are numerous. Some are obvious, some are hidden behind blinking lights and ‘splosions. But I think it all boils down to JJ and his writers thinking their audience is stupid. They think that, deep down, the only thing we REALLY want is some punching, some ‘splosions, a girl in a her undies, maybe a dude in his undies, and bullshit drama between the only female bridge character and the only character that’s not supposed to show emotions. That last point is the biggest insult, I walked out of the theater in 2009 when I saw Spock making out on a transporter pad. You see, Spock is this guy that doesn’t show his emotions, doesn’t make out in public, doesn’t ‘date’ for that matter, and doesn’t scream someone’s name in anger. Forget it, the audience is stupid and wouldn’t get it so lets make Spock an average dude instead.

      This is the kind of crap that targets a movie toward 15-year-old boys and gives the finger to anyone who actually has a brain.

  • bb-15

    Interesting. After the guys trashed “Into Darkness” for 45 minutes, Mike recommended it as an action film.
    And so would I.
    - I also keep in mind that Mike as Plinkett pretty much called all 4 Next Generation movies garbage. And he has a pretty negative commentary about “Final Frontier”. That’s 5 out of 10 of the old Star Trek movies that he did not like.
    - Mike realizes that today the slow paced Star Trek stories are not going to make successful films in terms of box office/survival of the franchise. And that a political Trek movie like “Insurrection” didn’t work.
    - As for Jay, I think he had trouble following the story.
    - Rich followed it but did not like the second half.
    A mixed bag for Half in the Bag.

    • http://profiles.google.com/charlesp2009 Charles Petrosky

      A political Trek film could be a smash hit with folks that can sit still and think for 2 hours. It’s just that “Insurrection” was rubbish. Picard saves a planet of white people in the dark days of the Dominion War. It doesn’t make sense in the grand scheme of the Trek timeline at that point and the story itself was flimsy. I liked it a lot as a kid but I was more or less ignoring DS9 once the war got going, and even today I prefer the fun exploration episodes over the deep, dark, and edgy ones (though I do appreciate a lot of what DS9 offered now that I’m an adult).

      • bb-15

        The problem is that most of the audience today is not going to sit still for an adult big budget political sci-fi movie (which leaves out “The Hunger Games”).
        A big budget sci-fi film these days needs to make about $400 million worldwide.
        The only recent adult political sci-fi movie I can think of was “Watchmen” and that bombed at the box office.
        Action movies are what most of the audience wants to see. Not slow paced political sci-fi.

      • Alex Lee

        A political Trek film was An Undiscovered Country, which is my favorite.

        I’ve never really interpreted Insurrection as a political film at all because it didn’t really have that message.

  • whip

    Jay’s earnest “Yes!” at 35:41 is hilarious.

  • gofyourself

    First thing, the Khan from the Wrath of Khan is only shown for a split second inside of one torpedo. Second, Sector 31 woke up a notorious history figure for his superior intellect and was condemned to death, a disposable soldier. Third, this man that calls himself Khan is improvising, playing the game as much is Kirk, there is no master plan. Fourth, as you guys stated, Star Trek is about politics, and we are living in 2013 were car bombs are exploding everyday in some place of this planet, if you care to watch something beyond blockbusters. Your you guys forget that the Neutral Zone is an analog of the Iron Curtain. I’m really pissed at this. Are just a bunch of cynics.

  • drithaib

    ..so..the next star Wars is going to be made of meaningless references to the original trilogy…I wonder how they are going to shoe in ” I am your father” scene…at least it will be pretty if devoid of any actual meaning…

    I agree with the statement about Star Trek into Darkness being a cartoon based on a bigger thing…it’s a live action cartoon….

    • Daniel Nguyen-Phuoc

      I think it’s good to clarify that they thought the director was a fine choice but the writing was where the film suffered. Therefore we needn’t necessarily expect that the upcoming Star Wars movies will be written the same way.

      • PegasusFantasy

        very true.
        It’s Lindelof+Krutzman+Orci’s fault.

        In the case of SW Abrams is a fan, so no reason to think it’ll be treated the same. Especially since the writers are different.

      • good ol’ days

        But if you look at some of his other movies you will find he does like to use a lot of referencing to older movies…but yes,the blame goes to the three musketeers a.k.a the writers…

  • Dale Sexton

    I think these guys got hung up on the bells and whistles rather than the plot. I did that too on my first viewing. There is a plot there and it is more complicated and deep than the fast paced shoot’em up pace allows to reveal. I think the problem with this movie is they tried too much to fit trek lore into it rather than let the plot speak for itself. Watch it again guys, it’s not as bad as you review. I enjoyed it much more the second time.

    • SkyDog

      There was some stuff to like to be sure, but overall it was a weak offering for multiple, objective reasons. I literally, without irony, facepalmed at the Khan reveal. Everything about it was just fucking wrong in terms of buildup, drama, and logic. Multiple moments like these can really hurt a film even if the production, cast, and visual effects are running on all eight cylinders.

      I would also recommend the film though as Mike said though. It is a fun ride, but ultimately disappointing due to a lack of creativity.

      • Dale Sexton

        I did a face palm and said “why” when I saw it (TWoK reversal) in the theater. Still don’t know why there can’t be someone that can write for this franchise and come up with something new. That was the whole point of the “new” timeline wasn’t it? A clean slate and they go “retread”.

    • PegasusFantasy

      the plot dont make no sense, if you put it down on paper.
      At best, it relies on heavy plot convenience.

      and by “tried too much to fit trek lore” what you should have said is shove in as many easter eggs and homages as it could

      • guest

        yeah it was the same thing as Prometheus. Too much time making references or stealing bits from the Alien franchise, lots of disconnected ‘bits’ seemingly shoved in because it would be a cool bit to have without connecting it to character motivation and so on.

        With the Khan reveal, wouldn’t it have been awesome if he paused, looked into the camera and went

        ‘faaaatthhheerrrrrrrr.’

        OMG! BIG REVEAL! NO ONE CARES!

        • Dale Sexton

          The “Khan reveal” was pretty much useless. Harrison could have just been an augment. But they did follow canon I think. The Botany Bay was programmed to open Khan first. But the reveal and the TWoK rip-off/reversal didn’t change the fact that this movie was very political and relevant to current events. The plot is tricky to follow and it’s apparent these guys didn’t take the time to do it. (as well as most here) Here is a great review/article speaking to the depth and relevance of this movie.
          (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62477)

          It’s easy to pick apart the bad/not so good, it’s a little harder to find the good sometimes.
          (I slapped my forehead and said “why” when Spock yelled “Khan!)

  • Daniel Nguyen-Phuoc

    Everyone seems to assume that JJ Abrams wrote this film? Look at the IMDB page, it was written by three other people. HitB credits JJ Abrams with good direction. Can we stop attributing him with all the responsibility?

    • whip

      I never blamed him directly. This script has that hack Damon Lindelof’s name all over it. You can’t miss it. He’s the master of using deus ex machina magical devices that cannot be explained.

    • decora

      what’s IMDB?

  • Elrond Hubbard

    Yes, I always wear my seat-belt. Now give me a new ad.

  • Now I Get It

    “Ricardo Montalban Khan is, like, flamboyant, egostistical, I’m-better-than-you Khan.”

    Ricardo Montelban Khan is Euro-Khan, like Hans from “Die Hard”, only Latin.
    (Sorry if someone said this already. My browser slowed to a pub-crawl when I tried to Hans-search 700+ comments.)

  • Z

    Man… It was fun, not every science fiction movie can be Blade Runner. This movie was fucking fun. I enjoy the shit out of these reviews but I think they were a little harsh on this movie.

    • good ol’ days

      This movie is barely science fiction…it’s more like science fantasy or better fantasy with science fiction appearance…sound in space? How does gravity work on their space ships? Cold fusion thingy ? All sentient life is humanoid ? ect….

      • Z

        You can sit back and nitpick every little detail or you can just take the movie for what it is. A summer popcorn flick, that’s what it is. And for a summer popcorn flick that was churned out for the masses it was pretty damn enjoyable one.

        And if you think sound in space is stupid you must have a problem with most science fiction movies. The only sci-fi series I can think of off the top of my head that doesn’t have sound in space is Firefly.

        Also:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy

        • good ol’ days

          Yes ,yes accurate definition of SF and fantasy…the point is this movie is just a summer popcorn flick like you say and as such is fun and o.k. but I would not call it SF just because it has space ships and other stuff you would stereotypically expect in SF…for me SF is about thought provoking ideas and concepts not about “uh look at the pretty gadgets and space”…

          • Z

            There is good Sci-Fi and bad Sci-Fi. This film I’d say falls somewhere in the middle. Not all Sci-Fi falls into your definition of Science Fiction. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not trying to be insulting or anything I’m just saying not all Sci-Fi movies are masterpieces.

          • PegasusFantasy

            why are you talking with yourself?

          • good ol’ days

            He’s not.

            But there’s no way to prove we are actually two different persons.

          • Z

            Why is anyone talking at all?

          • good ol’ days

            You hack fake identity thief.

          • good ol’ days

            I guess we all get a little bit too defensive too quickly on the internet…and you are right about Sf…I just wish
            Hollywood would somehow make a bolder step into the direct of hard SF and stop making these approximations of SF…

            Profit rules I guess :P

          • Z

            I understand man. I also would like a truly amazing Sci-Fi movie to grace our screens again. What can ya do though. Its Hollywood.

      • Peter Hairston

        Couple points:
        1) Star Trek has never been hard science fiction, there’s a lot of hand-wavey stuff in all the shows/movies. That’s just how this setting is.
        2) The all sentient life is humanoid thing was originally a product of low make-up effects budget in the Original Series and in The Next Generation, and was explained as a canon plot-device in the Next Generation episode “The Chase”. Literally, nearly all sentient life in the Star Trek universe is humanoid. It’s a thing about the setting.

    • SkyDog

      Mike literally says exactly that – it’s fun. The problem was that it wasn’t compelling, which is a missed opportunity with all the elements at play.

      • Z

        I suppose I’ll take a closer look at the movie when I re-watch it and keep what they had to say in mind.

        • SkyDog

          I don’t want to come across as saying “No one has any right to enjoy this film at all!”. I actually did ‘have fun’ while watching it thanks to the top notch production quality – it just overall left a hollow feeling. Not every film can give you the warm and fuzzies, and it’s ridiculous to expect that, but it’s hard not to be a little disappointed when there is so much potential for a truly great story to be told in tandem with the beautiful visuals.

      • Tomas P.

        I thought the movie was very exciting and compelling. I guess it’s just a matter of the opinion. Too bad Jay, Mike and Rich don’t understand that.
        Why I don’t like this review is because they seem very mean to this movie and to the writters, producers etc. (Mike literally screams out loud that the script is shit. That’s just wrong.) At no point they looked at the movie from a different perspective other than as Trek fans. Even Jay, who says he’s not that familiar with the franchise. The show wasn’t always all incredible ideas and human conflict. It was also adventurous and a lot of fun. Jay only knows Star Trek from movies that of course tried harder to impress the audience and had more substance than the show, so he has no idea what the movie is trying to capture.
        I love Half in the Bag, I love Mike, Jay and Rich, but this review was very disappointing and lacked really good points. I wouldn’t mind a negative review as long as it’s a good analysis and not just a random rant about things they didn’t like or understand.
        The comedy sketches in the review are great as always, too bad I don’t care anymore. Such a waste only because they rushed to judge the movie.

        • SkyDog

          This was certainly not their tightest episode due to some drunken meandering (still entertaining as hell), but I get the feeling we will be hearing more from Mike fucking Stoklasa on the subject.

          That said, their salient points still stand strong about the films weaknesses.

          • chris moll

            I actually kinda got the feeling that they were drunk during this episode as well

        • Peter Hairston

          I enjoyed the movie, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have problems, and Jay, Mike and Rich have different tastes than some people. I find myself agreeing with them more often than not, but sometimes people just don’t like the same movie.

        • vontux

          Disliking a movie because it has no substance is perfectly valid. If you like an action flick that is all about the special effects and has no real substance that is fine, taking criticism of the dumbing down of the film industry personally….less ok.

        • decora

          Mike probably understands more about star trek than most of the other reviewers on the entire internet, video or print. If you have watched the plinkett reviews, he meticulously breaks down the movies by interposing them with clips from the series that prove his point.

          To do that, he must have some kind of near encyclopedic call back to the series. You can see hints of that here where he starts pulling out the names of specific TNG episodes. He must have spent dozens, if not hundreds, of hours going through clips of the old series to produce those Plinkett reviews.

          Mike understands Trek perfectly well. He is lamenting what has been lost. As plinkett said, when did Star Trek become so dark depressing, and violent? For example, Patrick Stewarts favorite episode is The Inner Light, an entire episode devoted to an old man playing a flute and studying the sun and weather patterns with his daughter.

          Other episodes revolved entirely around a struggle to communicate with an alien species, using metaphors like the Epic of Gilgamesh.

          Or another episode, which involved a man who could only speak through an interpereter, who struggled when she was killed.

          That’s about as far from the current string of movies as you can get. Anyone who spent much time with the original series will understand this and what has changed.

    • Yukons

      I respect that it was ‘fun’. JJ makes ‘fun’ movies very well, but he ALWAYS plays to the lowest common denominator. I just expect more from Trek. Don’t get me wrong, I haven’t gotten what I want from a Trek movie in over 20 years. But I still feel it’s my duty to bitch about it until I get what I want.

      If you thought this movie was great because of its funness, that’s totally fine.

  • batmanjedi1

    jay and mike and that other guy you missed the point of the movie. the point of the movie was not about rehashing fan moments from previous movies its about putting familiar moments with a different take whitch makes the movie unique. I admit the story is not what makes the movie good it is the characters. for example the scene where sulu got to be in the captains chair was probably the coolest sulu has ever been. or scotty was the funniest he has ever been. even Kirk had to go through a different story ark. and khan was very menacing. and the moral of the story was its okay to brake the rules if its for a good cause, which I thought was a very good moral. so I hope you guys see my point I admit the movie was not perfect but was not bad in fact I would put it among some of the better star trek movies such as ”the Voyage Home” and ”the Wrath of Khan” you guys did make some good points like the one about the tribble and khans blood. but like the ”Dark Knight Rises” plot holes in this movie are forgivable. that is all I have to say.

    • chud

      You sound like a twelve year old.

      • Tomas P.

        ….and you don’t?

    • SkyDog

      This comment is so incredibly lacking in substance and argumentative quality it boggles my mind. It’s like looking into a black hole.

      Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you – the target demographic.

      • Ladies & Gentlemen

        *applause*

    • Tomas P.

      My opinion exactly. There were so much more greatness in this film, but you just disregard it as shit, because the story (which you don’t even understand correctly) wan’t impresive to you.

    • guest

      story arks are tough, even tougher than story arcs.

    • Guest

      I really can’t tell if this is a troll or not..

    • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

      It’s never okay to ‘brake’ spelling rules.

  • individual of the dumb masses

    I don’t know where the problem is guys.
    The movie was fun, yes, it was so fun.
    fun, fun, fun, fun, fun.
    What…? What was that? It’s stupid and makes no sense?
    Oh…
    Well, at least it was fun.

    • Z

      Way to be an assuming prick about it.

      • SkyDog

        Some people are just really disgruntled by how movies seem to now be judged as theme park rides rather than narrative driven experiences.

        Can’t say I blame them, but I express myself differently.

        • Z

          I get it, I just don’t think people should be jerks about it. Then again this is the internet. So fuck it.

          • individual of the dumb masses

            We’ll show them! Together we’re strong Z!

      • but it’s fun

        He’s not assuming anything. Half the posts in this comments section are using the excuse that the movie is “fun” as a way to deflect any (often very valid) criticisms against it.

        • Z

          The assumption I have a problem with is that anyone who enjoyed the movie for what it was is apparently a member of the dumb masses. I’d call that kind of arrogant. People have different opinions then you. Sorry that’s just the way of the world. Sure some dumb-asses enjoyed this movie, and I’m sure a few dumb-asses hated this movie. Fun is not an excuse, its one of the good parts of the movie.

          • vontux

            I think when we use the term “dumb-masses” it is a bit of a misnomer to say that everyone who enjoys a “dumb-masses” movie is stupid. I have a friend who loves brainless blockbusters (including “Into Darkness”) who has a masters degree in physics. If you are entertained by content-less special effects pieces you aren’t necessarily stupid, but the movie was.

          • mothers butt of Peter Hairston

            Look guys he pulled the “friend who finished university” card.
            *sigh*
            Your academic career has nothing to do with being a less foolish human being. Most smart people laughed at the idea of flying. People with high qualifications work for manufacturers of Electrical Equipment and design it in such a way that it breaks shortly after your warranty expires.
            So unless we’re having a conversation about tissue I would love to have the opinion of your friend who is a histopathologist. Everything else just makes you look like a child that thinks grown ups know everything better.

          • JarJarSkywalker

            It’s not an assumption, it’s a fact

      • mothers butt of Peter Hairston

        Haha! He’s pissed because he wrote a comment that goes…

        “Man… It was fun, not every science fiction movie can be Blade Runner.
        This movie was fucking fun. I enjoy the shit out of these reviews but I
        think they were a little harsh on this movie.”

        XD

  • Gorrister

    Is it just me or does the hipster in the beginning look eerily like Harcourt Fenton Mudd?

    • Peter Hairston

      The Trouble with Hipsters

  • Tyler Sypherd

    Why do people say this movie was to fast and nothing made sense because everyone talked to fast, I understood everything they said no problem. And sure some of it was like “huh? What? Is that really a good explanation for what’s happening?” but still it leas tit kept me interested, at least it wasn’t like the Dark Knight Rises or the Hobbit and was basically “Let’s explain a bunch of needlessly complex crap for nearly three hours and then give you one hour of non stop cartoon-y action with absolutely no wait because you’ve stopped caring about any of this because the movie has talked you to sleep and because you’ve seen the LOTR’s movies and probably read the Hobbit so you know Bilbo won’t die, nor will Batman because he’s Batman.” (And P.S. I did actually like aspects of both of those previously mentioned films but as overall products, not so much, this film never bored me and if anything I will give it that, can’t say that for TDKR or The Hobbit)

    • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

      “leas tit”

      Mmmm… tits.

      • Tyler Sypherd

        Well I wasn’t wrong leas tits always do keep me interested XD

  • Tyler Sypherd

    Okay you know what I think I’ve figure out the problem guys, it’s that these aren’t “Star Trek” movies they are movie adaptations based off an old sort of cheesy 1960′s Sci-fi TV show that has some influence in pop culture. In other words the films both story wise and with the imagery and references are really based off of the show only the show was well, as TV show and these are movies so stories and characters meant for television made faster and louder and forced into movie form when they really shouldn’t be. For example this film is really just a long version of the “Space Seed” episode only no one who isn’t a Trek Fan knows what “Space Seed” is but they do know “Wrath of Khan” so that’s what the film is ultimately forced into becoming despite it not having been earned with any of these characters, so it ends up like this. These aren’t made the way the movies were made and so suffer for that and believe me all this crap made me squirm as a Trek fan but then I just mentally slapped myself and remembered what this is A more “Star Wars-y” space action adventure movie that is also a fun little nod to an old TV show and should not be taken to seriously, and that way it can be enjoyed for what it is instead of hated, yes it sucks that real Trek is “dead” but some could argue it was long “dead” before these movies were ever made and as I see it at least people are talking about it, it may yet prove to be useful in getting new fans the way the 2099 film made me interested in watching old Star Trek. but hey I can’t blame anyone for hating it, nor anyone for liking it, it’s all a tricky situation anyway you slice it.

    • Just honest

      Please stop writing Tyler you’re talking your ass off and it is all dumb.

      • Tyler Sypherd

        Wow I am? *looks behind self* Nope my ass is still there, don’t know what you’re talking about you crazy rascal you.

        • mothers butt of Peter Hairston

          Wow, you’ve just proved so hard that he’s right.

          • Tyler Sypherd

            OMG you’re right! Thank you “Totally Legit Super Scientist Genius Experts on People Who Are Dumb and Talk Too Much On The Internet,” you’re completely credible and valid scientific evidence has shown me the light, I will now no longer speak on the internet in a dumb manner, nor will I speak for a very long time, continually speaking long past the time that necessary and/or long past anyone caring. I am so grateful for you showing me this, thank you, thank you, thank you, I will now forevermore cease talking on the internet, no more shall I speak dumb things over the internet nor shall those dumb things continue on for an overly long time, it will not happen…nope…it will no..nope, nope never again…nah ah…..nada…..not a chance………no way Jose……….NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩

      • Tyler Sypherd

        Wait am I writing or am I talking? I’m so confused, does anyone know whats happening in this movie? Please email me if you know what’s happening in this movie at http://www.Nobodycaresyoustupiddumbasshole.com

    • 0 is to close to 9 on the keyb

      2099? So you are from the future ? Are there jet packs yet or are we fighting Skynet ?

      • Yukons

        Doom 2099 rules the world.

      • Tyler Sypherd

        Yes, yes and yes and it’s going surprisingly well I might add. The future is what we make for ourselves, peace out future machine fodder! B| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Xjir3YSUA8

  • Tyler Sypherd

    And I agree with Jay, Karl Urban is great as Bones! Give the guy his own movie! Maybe entitled “Star Trek: Cranky Space Doctor.”

  • Miss Plinkett

    Ohhh i cant wait to see what JJ will do with star wars!!! (turn the irony on)

    • Peter Hairston

      yes, because all the other Star Wars movies have been brilliantly written, well executed cinematic masterpieces.

      • mothers butt of Peter Hairston

        You don’t like the original trilogy ?

        • Peter Hairston

          I liked the original trilogy fine, but lets be honest; after the prequels it’d be difficult for Star Wars’ movie cred to go lower.
          JJ makes good action movies, and that’s what Star Wars is, a good space opera action movie.

          • Bill T

            The original SW trilogy had sympathetic, relatable characters, and a storyline the audience could connect with. Neither the SW prequels nor the ST abominations have that. What’s Abrams bringing to the table? Two hours of eye candy and nonstop, hollow action scenes. Maybe it’s fair to place the bulk of the blame on the writers here, but Abrams’ track record for directing cohesive, well-written entertainment isn’t good. At ALL. As it stands now, for Abrams’ Star Wars, I predict nothing more than a different flavor of bad.

          • majestyk12

            I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree. I like the new Star Trek movies, as well as other films Abrams has done. But it’s obviously subjective.

  • http://www.facebook.com/AdamW81 Adam Workman

    Wow, that is a perfect analogy of the plot being like a magic trick. When they were going over the plot I realized how dumb it really was. I mean, I knew it was pretty simple, but I didn’t realize that it was so nonsensical.

    • Daniel Nguyen-Phuoc

      I felt the same way. The movie moved fast enough and was visually exciting enough for me to not think about the plot as it was happening, but after trying to explain it…

    • Yukons

      That’s JJ’s strength. You leave the theater with a smile, but subsequent viewings diminish your opinion. Like a magic trick.

    • SkyDog

      That’s generally how films of this market scale usually play out though. The question is, does it need to be that way? Films that spend time making sure their narrative is consistent are usually considered boring by most people, so can a giant action blockbuster with a smart, challenging, and consistent script make enough money to turn a profit?

      Dunno, but it seems like this movie ended up underwhelming in its gross, so maybe audiences are ready for better.

  • SkyDog

    Mike names Skyfall as a modern, big budget action movie with a smart and slick script… which is interesting because that movie was written by John Logan…who also wrote Star Trek: Nemesis :D

    • Yukons

      Logan has a lot of credits under his belt, especially since then. I don’t think anyone blames Logan exclusively for Nemesis.

      • SkyDog

        Yeah, but he is the man responsible for there being a dune buggy chase in Star Trek.

        • Yukons

          Is that so? That’s a shame. Fine then, I’ll have him beheaded. That scene was a crime upon humanity.

        • William Shakesman

          I thought Patrick Stewart was responsible for that.

  • Baló Timár

    I felt insulted by this movie. It’s like an obnoxious asshole poking me with his elbow “SEE?! SEE?! THAT WAS A REFERENCE TO THE ORIGINAL SERIES! YOU LIKE STAR TREK, NERD, LAUGH GODDAMNIT!” I know, the series is famous for referencing itself constantly, but they went way overboard with this one. I liked the performances (Simon Pegg is always fun and Karl Urban steals the movie) and the Klingons looked pretty menacing but I agree, the script is a fucking mess.

  • Chuck Finley

    Ok hold on a minute..It’s obvious that Bones manipulated Khans DNA to accept tribble DNA keeping the regenerative properties of Khans before injecting it into the tribble. Pfft

  • SkyDog

    You know why this movie is so dumb? It’s not because the filmmakers are trying to appeal to the “dumb masses”, it’s because they’re trying to appeal to the non-english speaking masses, i.e. “the international market” as you’ll hear the crew refer to it in interviews.

    I’m not at all implying that non-english audiences are stupid, but it’s pretty plain to me that the movie is so numbingly broad and base so as to appeal to people who may barely even speak English in the first place.What results is a movie with instantly recognizable imagery, catchphrases, names, and scenarios to make damn sure there’s little to get lost in translation.

    Rich was totally right when he said a blockbuster isn’t a blockbuster unless it has an international haul.

    • Sulfur12

      No. You fail. The movie is dumb in general. It has nothing to do with audiences. To think that it is supposed to go abroad and be showed there without any trnslation is even dumber than this movie. To think that it is going to be translated but for some reason despite the fact that it is international audience which means audience that has no knowledge of Star Trek, but somehow they will recognize catchphrases is a little bit less dumber, but still dumb. To sum up the very idea that international audience is any different than domestic one is dumb. Becuase dumb movie is dumb no matter to what audience you will show it to. And this movie is dumber than it should be legally allowed. Have a tin foil hat and a Careboar episode instead!

      • SkyDog

        Do you really think cultural and linguistic nuance can’t be lost across a language barrier, even with dubbing or subtitles? You don’t at all imagine that a character like Spock, Data, or Worf, whose characterization is so heavily based on their eccentric use of the English language, may not totally come across to a non-English speaker? Hell, you don’t even think taste can vary by culture? Please do not get me wrong, the writers intentions were completely miscalculated in their vain attempts at wider accessibility, but I do believe there was an attempt to make Trek more popular to non-English speaking audiences considering it never has been (and considering they said so themselves).

    • Daniel Nguyen-Phuoc

      I lived in Indonesia for a while. The most popular American movies there (and elsewhere I’ve traveled) were action movies, because even if you have subtitles it’s a lot easier to be entertained by visuals than be entertained by plot, which might have cultural or linguistic nuances which are difficult to translate.

      So in a way it’s true, you’re more likely to get a better international showing if you make it a visually interesting movie in terms of action scenes with just enough plot to keep it going.

      • SkyDog

        Basically that. This movie wasn’t just made with the assumption that the audience is stupid – it was made with the assumption that the audience is stupid and may not even speak English well. It is that broad.

    • Nate Rosario

      I think you make a valid point. I’m sure that there are some sci-fi concepts that translate better into multiple languages and cultures than others. So it’s better to use ideas that have been around for decades, rather than fill the movie with cutting edge scientific theories that only a tiny minority of the audience will even comprehend (regardless of the language barrier).

      The simple fact that the biggest blockbuster movies are being released overseas before they make it to the United States should tell us that we aren’t the primary market anymore, so the days of big-budget movies catering strictly to American audiences are drawing to a close. And when you are making a movie that is supposed to cross cultural and language barriers, then that requires a different and broader form of storytelling.

      • SkyDog

        Precisely, and I also believe that it is this shift in the industry’s priorities that has affected what kind of material Hollywood is willing to use for it’s bigger investments, among a whole slew of other complicated factors of course.

    • Martin

      You may have a point. In my corner of Europe, Star Trek is still considered a niche franchise aimed at super-nerds. Unlike the US where even grandma has heard about the Enterprise and Star Trek is part of popular culture, here it’s just one of the weirdo sci-fi shows that few people watch. My parents, modern people of the TV and internet age, have never heard of Spock. For most people, Picard is that boring bald dude you skip over when you channel surf before a football match.

      By marketing it as an action movie, the distributors have a much higher chance of attracting the “non-nerd” audience. The Trekkies here are few and far between and if the profits depended on them only, the movie would totally bomb. By turning it into a cool modern action flick they can reap money from tons of people who couldn’t care less about Prime Directive or trans-warp beaming. It may be sad, but it makes them money, which is obviously the only thing the movie studios care about. The international market is huge and action sells.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lead.sharp Lead Sharp

    I liked Into Darkness, it was dumb in places and it’s very much a Star Trek of its generation, but I was entertained for a couple of hours despite the very good points you guys raise.

    I think a real problem is in “the good old days” films tried to teach an audience by being just good films and any genre film could be the one that gets you hooked on that particular genre. Now they’re pandering to the masses.without thinking “if we just make the best film we can, we’ll get a big audience.”

  • GoDFaDDa

    You guys should do another follow-up like the Prometheus one, where you just ask questions about the ridiculous plot and character motivations (why exactly did Carol Marcus sneak on board?).

    • Chris Francis

      She wanted to know more about the torpedoes that her father essentially banned her from looking into. She was curious about what exactly they were and what made them so secretive.

  • Topdek

    I enjoyed this movie, but I agree with this review. I guess I was stupid enough to be suckered in by the director’s magic tricks.

    • whip

      I walked out mostly liking it. It took some time of thought and introspection for my view to change. And I’d still even recommend it.. mostly.. If for the effects and thrill ride aspect alone.

      But this thing has no story at all. It’s the most thinly contrived fan service plot of all time.

    • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

      I’m not sure how I should feel about this film. When I watched it, I really enjoyed it. Whenever something would arise that made me go, “Wait… what? That doesn’t make sense,” I’d quickly think, “You know what? Screw it. There a good number of positive aspects and I want to enjoy this movie, so I’ll forgive the shortcomings because the positive parts outweigh the negative parts.” I can’t do that with some movies, but this was fun enough that I allowed myself to do so. I didn’t feel like it insulted my intelligence too much.

      • Lemon Aidez

        I get what you’re trying to say – creative stuff and such can make you forget about plot holes, but that’s not how it works. If the plot holes are enough to make you think about them and take you out of the movie’s plot, the movie has made a mistake. If you need to go “I like the movie anyway” in your mind while watching the movie, it’s likely not because the movie has positive aspects to offer, but because you forcedly want yourself to like the movie.

        • Haitchpeasauce

          This movie was fun as long as I tried not to think. As soon as I started thinking at all, the brain started hurting.

          I notice a trend in recent big movies (The Dark Knight Rises, Prometheus, Star Trek Into Darkness) that raise far too many questions about character motivation and lack a well told, solid plot, that just take me out of the movie repeatedly.

          Red Letter Media have ruined me.

        • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

          I’m saying I noticed the positives in the film and made a choice to appreciate the trip I had made to the cinema. You can look at nearly every movie and point our errors, plot holes, lack of character motivation, etc.

          I can do that at times and enjoy doing so, but for this movie I just decided that I’d enjoy it for what it is: an imperfect movie that’s trying to entertain me [and take my money]. I guess I just wanted to escape into another world and enjoy myself for a little over 2 hours [well, excluding the 20 minutes I had to wait through TV commercials and trailer to get to the actual movie].

          I notice many errors in movies, especially related to dodgy Hollywood physics and poor logic [this one really made a lot or errors], but I forgave this one because I was really entertained in spite of those negatives [for example, I couldn't do the same for Transformers 2 and 3].

          I’m sure if I made this longer I’d be overly redundant, so I’ll end it here.

  • AlienFanatic

    At 38:00 the question is posed,

    “If you were to explain to a layman, like everyone will say, ‘Well of course it’s Star Trek. It has Kirk and Spock and the Star Trek Enteprise in it.’ What is the difference between old Star Trek and new Star Trek not..without saying this has more better special effects or action.”

    I think the best way to illustrate the difference between old and new Trek is to explain the difference between a discussion and a shouting match.

    In a discussion, each side should be invested in and actively attentive to the things that are being said. A voice may be raised for effect, but in general the words and their meanings are what’s important.

    In a shouting match, the goals are to overwhelm and storm past, while leaving a strong impression. The energy is more important than the intent.

    The new Star Trek wants to rush at us and overwhelm us. It’s not interested in whether or not we agree or even understand, only that we submit. The old Star Trek was more willing to turn down the volume and allow us to consider what it was trying to say.

    At least that’s my take.

  • ska-triumph

    Without finishing this very keen and funny review, exposing all the illogical plot logic in this film just to get to each easter egg and/or (Tribble with human magic blood!?), that KHAN HARRISON’s dialogue while imprisoned KINDA answers his revenge plot. He said he thought MARCUS killed his – also superhuman – crew/family so he “responded in kind.”

  • w

    the hipster looks like harry mudd

    • Now I Get It

      Yeah, it’s the ‘stache – right? – and the high forehead.

  • ubermood

    This film, PROMETHEUS, most of LOST — can we agree that Damon Lindelof is the most overpaid screenwriting hack in Hollywood? He’s about as famous as a screenwriter could hope to be, but he’s produced nothing but incoherent crap with no grasp of characterization or story structure. Thankfully, and despite the fact that he’s stapled to JJ Abrams’ coattails, he hasn’t been given the opportunity to fuck up STAR WARS (knock on wood).

    • Lancelof

      What Lindelof needs is to be conned at his own game. Pitch him a geeky screenwriting project that he can clearly see will allow him to take advantage of an existing franchise, hand him a superior script and ask him to rework it, tell him JJ Abrams is attached to direct. Then just let him excitedly make rewrite after rewrite, always telling him that each new script is superior but that he needs to write just one more and then everything will be perfect. Promise him all the while that his best script is just around the corner, as is his pay check.

      • ubermood

        In the case of this STAR TREK, Lindelof was also credited as producer, if I remember correctly. So maybe he was conning himself, and writing his own paycheck. And I’m sure he’s a nice, reasonable guy—good conversation, etc etc. But I just don’t understand his success. Everything he touches turns to shit. First TREK reboot, not penned by Lindelof—a surprise success, more or less. The sequel, penned by Lindelof—a sloppy, pandering mess. PROMETHEUS had so much potential—so high concept, so anticipated—it could have been a generational event. But what’s the point of a screenplay with supercilious Nietzsche allusions when the storytelling basics are muddled, when the characters’ motivations are arbitrary and confused? I just don’t respect his work. Even at the popcorn, mainstream movie level, we deserve better.

        • guest

          With Lindelof it isn’t even the plot. Those people that dislike Lindelof’s work say ‘sloppy plot’ pretty regularly now but this isn’t the basis of his problem with writing compelling engaging SATISFYING stories.

          He doesn’t seem to pay any mind to consistency in character motivations.

          There’s the obvious example from Prometheus of the guy who thinks he’ll get killed if he stays in the cave system, then smokes pot, wanders around, gets lost, goes closer to the dangerous alien he wanted to avoid all along…

          But the main character of Prometheus, who dreamily talks of meeting humanity’s creators, has a revelation resulting in “We were wrong so very very wrong” …only to dreamily head off to meet her creators “I want to ask them why…” at the end. She can’t even grasp and hang onto basic facts like the engineers are 100% human ie they are humans, we are humans, they AREN’T your creators they’re the same @#%&ing species.

          And by the way, let’s insist on kamikaze ramming the alien spacecraft to save Earth… but let’s not warn earth. In fact, since we’ve run out of Engineers on THIS planet to do the job of wiping out Earth, let’s rush straight to the Engineers – surely someone there will be concerned about Earth-humans reaching their homeworld and can pick up where the other guy left off.

          Nothing that’s important to her is remotely important to her.

          If the main character’s story arc doesn’t even begin in Prometheus, then why are we watching it at all?!?!? Just give us a little scrolling star wars script telling us the crew of Prometheus is toast and start with her taking off in the ship with the android-head. The guy from Memento with amnesia and no short to long term memory conversion has a more consistent motivation and a better character arc than Elizabeth Shaw.

          • ubermood

            Agreed. Nice points all around.

            Both PROMETHEUS and TREK did OK at the box office, but underperformed. We can only hope that Lindelof’s track record catches up with him and eventually prevents him from getting these high profile gigs. Or that he makes a transition to soap operas, where weak characters and non sequitur stories are embraced.

          • Yukons

            Wise words. This is the smartest conversation I’ve ever seen on the interwebs. Congrats.

          • decora

            “basic facts like the engineers are 100% human”

            no, they aren’t. nowhere, not even a single frame, does it say they have identical DNA. in fact it specifically says they dont have 100% the same DNA.

            they DO warn earth. it’s the last transmission, the last line of the movie. I am the last survivor of Prometheus she begins. Do not come here to this planet, it is only death.

            She goes to their home world to confront them, not to ‘find out why’.

          • guest

            They most definitely do find a 100% match with humans. Shaw even says, to punctuate it, in case this is lost on the dumb viewers, “IT’S US.”

            Nice try.

            “Final report of the vessel Prometheus. The ship and her entire crew are gone. If you’re receiving this transmission, make no attempt to come to its point of origin. There is only death here now, and I’m leaving it behind. It is New Year’s Day, the year of our Lord, 2094. My name is Elizabeth Shaw, the last survivor of the Prometheus. And I am still searching.”

            so… IF someone receives the transmission, there’s only death here and she’s searching. Good to know. She threw a message in a bottle a very cryptic one at that instead of making sure someone knows specifically of the peril of total extinction. Might be nice to know about that danger so we can start beefing up our military, establishing secret “failsafe” colonies to protect our heritage, culture, etc. Nope.

            Nothing about a bunch of starfaring humans more advanced than those on Earth with the definite capacity and motivation to wipe out Earth’s entire branch of the species. Maybe the Engineers don’t show up on the planet, maybe they show up next week, maybe in 100 years, but at some point they’d figure out the death ship didn’t make it. But why wait, Shaw is going directly TO them when the only hope for Earth-humans’ survival is to stay hidden.

            Again, nice try.

            Uh yeah, anytime someone offers up a plate of shit and invites me to eat it, they will get plenty of indignation in return AS THEY COULD REASONABLY EXPECT. I guess you’ll just grab your fork and dig in – wouldn’t want to get indignant now.

          • guest

            “they DO warn earth. it’s the last transmission, the last line of the movie. I am the last survivor of Prometheus she begins. Do not come here to this planet, it is only death.”

            To quote Joseph Stalin, “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”

            The danger isn’t to individual foolish researchers who might bumble around on this one planet, it’s that the Engineer-humans have ships, and they want to fly these ships to Earth and kill everything there. Not even just humans, the whole biosphere.

            What the #@%# difference does it make if Earth-humans avoid that one planet? The Engineer-humans have no interest in discussing it with us and their technology is far superior to ours, so they’ve definitely got the motive and the means.

            But let’s consider Shaw’s limited motives. Sure, she puts aside the priority of saving all Earth-based life, but she tries to keep people away from the planet so they don’t get themselves into trouble there. That’s kind of helpful, right? But how likely is it anyone will listen to her based on a single audio message they might very well not get of a woman in no official capacity from a mission nobody knows about saying dreamily “There’s only death here, and I’m leaving it behind…. I’m still searching.”

            …when she could show up at the nearest Earth-human outpost with all the information she could gather from Prometheus in a ship of unmistakably alien origin, thus mobilizing the entire Earth-human civilization to preparation – and giving them a slight edge in survival by getting some alien technology to study?

            Shaw has got to be the most criminally stupid character in film history. Genocide isn’t the right word for what will happen if the Engineer-humans get to Earth. Democide? Multi-specio-cide? Biosphere… ocide? Goodbye to not only Earth-humans, who might have had it coming with all of their foolishness, but goodbye to Dolphins, Honeybees, Lichens, Giraffes, Butterflies, Redwoods, Roses, Tigers, Kelp Forests, Orangutans, Blue Whales… sorry, you’re all done. Goodbye, goodbye. Shaw is STILL SEARCHING. No time for you.

            And apparently, even though earlier, she understood that a ship could fly to Earth and do horrible things there, she now thinks if people just avoid the planet, everything is okay. I guess she thinks any ENGINEERS that come along will just take her advice too and turn back – as opposed to landing and finding out Earth is still a going concern?

          • guest

            Oh, and obviously, the mere fact that SHAW is sending a message ought to be sufficient cause for her to, with the utmost terror, panic, and urgency, get in direct contact with an Earth outpost with incontrovertible proof of the danger ASAP.

            Because if SHE could send a message, so could the Engineer. So, as far as she knows, the clock started ticking for Earth and all life from it the moment the Engineer powered up his ship.

          • decora

            i cant argue with someone who can’t even remember the fucking movie. she specifically says its a match that ‘predates’ human DNA and that its not a 100% match. watch it again

        • Mark Bisone

          You really nail the main problem with “supercilious allusions”; that describes Lindelof’s writing technique to a tee. He is king of the mindless allusion, constantly dropping in references that don’t connect back to anything meaningful to the story or characters. He is like one of those pretentious know-nothing morons who likes to go around quoting Nietzsche or Sartre or Foucault or Steven Hawking or fucking whomever without ever having read a single by them and having no idea what the quotes actually mean or how to use them in context. He just sprinkles in arbitrary nods to various scientific theories, religious symbols, philosophies and literature with the hope that dummies will think he is trying to say something smart and deep. He’s not. He is at best someone with very little life experience, an average IQ and a knack for disguising these drawbacks behind a giant cloud of disconnected symbols and pseudo-intellectual horseshit.

          “Lost” was riddled with instances of this tactic, but back then people just assumed he was purposely dropping red herrings in order to develop the mystery. He wasn’t. All that shit about time travel, for instance, was just a chance to copy-paste quantum physics articles, which he doesn’t comprehend at all and doesn’t feel like he needs to. The important thing was that it might make him sound smart and would provoke “questions”, so Mongo just tossed it in there like so much monkey poop.

          • guest

            Well said! You definitely CAN inform a work, give it extra depth by infusing it with references – John Fowle’s The Magus is a perfect example in literature. Or Sean Stewart does a great job of it with his magical realist stuff like Resurrection Man, which could make a really good movie if someone like Del Toro got ahold of it – but obviously you have to know what you’re talking about and find a way to tie all the symbolic threads together. Hiring Lindelof to just throw a bunch of random references, events, one-liners, cool “bits” etc in a blender and hitting the on button means your film might very well enjoy initial success at the expense of NEVER EVER having a chance to be a classic movie that still gets bought and rented decades down the line or even a few years after release.

            I think World War Z is going to be the end of the line for Lindelof’s fashionability. I’m sure he will still get work, no doubt, but I think it’ll be the nail in the coffin in terms of being the hot new-ish writer of Lost etc. I think WWZ will also be the moment of jumping the shark for zombie movies. Sadly.

          • Mark Bisone

            Hell, the ORIGINAL “Wrath of Khan” was loaded with literary allusions and references, mainly to Dickens and Melville. The difference? They all made sense, helped to put the characters in sharper focus and contributed to the themes of the story.

            Kirk was getting old and starting to really feel his age. He was regretting the choices he’d made that took him off the bridge and put him behind a desk, because it left him feeling as useless and obsolete as his collection of antique pistols. When Spock gives him Dickens’ “Tale of Two Cities” as a birthday present, the book’s opening quote seems to be slyly referencing this problem.

            But we’ll eventually find out that there’s much more to this seemingly offhand reference. Along the way, we come to understand that Kirk has never truly faced his own mortality, and after meeting up with an estranged son who despises him and a ghost from his past trying to murder him, he begins to believe that this fear of facing death has caused him to let his life slip by. Kirk is set up as a kind of swashbuckling, sci-fi Sydney Carton, with all of that character’s sloppy, arrogant, genius. But by the end it’s Spock who mounts the gallows and makes the noble sacrifice, while Kirk remains on the bridge, trying to cheat death to the bitter end. It’s a twist on the classic tale, and the tragic irony of Kirk reciting Carton’s final words in the last scene is all about Kirk completing his arc and growing as a character.

            That’s how real writers use a literary referent. In the background of a sci-fi story about renewal, rebirth and creative destruction is… a story about renewal, rebirth and creative destruction. The planetary “death and resurrection” that the Genesis device provides will resonate with readers of “Tale”. The book’s theme of sacrifice and resurrection meaningfully connects the character arcs to the film’s plot in way that builds and reinforces the theme: Kirk can also be renewed and revived, and by way of Spock’s sacrifice, he is. That’s a coherent, meaningful reference and an example of great screenwriting

            Here’s how Lindelof would do it:

            “OKAY THERES THIS ALIEN DUDE NAMED GASPARD AND HE DRIVES THiS FUCKING HUUUUUGEASS SPACESHIP CALLED “THE MARQUIS” THAT HAS A SPECIAL BLACK HOLE-MAKER GUN CALLED THE ZARATHRUSTA OR THE RAGNAROCKET OR SOMETHING MUSLIMY MAYBE? GASPARD WANTS TO START A SPACE REVOLUTION AGAINST STAR FLEET OR SOMETHING, AND CAPTAIN KIRK AND SPOCK HAVE TO STOP HIM! THEY CHASE HIM THROUGH A GIANT SPACE STATION SHAPED LIKE THE EIFFEL TOWER THAT’S FILLED WITH EXACTLY 1789 FROZEN ALIEN CLONES CALLED “SYDS” WHO WILL WAKE UP WHEN AMBASSADOR DARNAY GETS EXECUTED BY THE ROMULANS OR THE KLINGERS OR THE WATCHAMACALITS THOSE GUYS WITH THE EARS?? QUESTIONS WILL BE ANSWERED!!!!”

          • Yukons

            I can’t top this astonishing rundown of the underlining themes of Wrath. Thank you so much for explaining this to the world.

            I just want to point out my favorite scene where Kirk surrenders to Khan and begins to trick him (claiming to get Khan the Genesis info when he’s really hacking Khan’s shields). There’s a moment where Kirk has to look down at the console, but his old eyes can no longer see. He has to pull out his old-man glasses. He stops, looks around the bridge in the middle of all this and realizes that he’s on a ship full of young recruits that look up to him as a hero. Knowing that he has to put his embarrassment aside, he simply says, “Damn” and puts the old-man glasses on.

            I love this scene because, not only would Kirk be emotionally crushed by this old age limitation, but so would the self-conscience and insecure William Shatner. I often wondered what required more bravery from Kirk: surrendering or putting on the glasses in front of a bunch of kids.

          • guest

            hahaha… I ALMOST posted a rant about how older Star Trek made use of literary references – so glad I didn’t, yours hit the spot – even the relatively crappy First Contact referenced Moby Dick in a heavy-handed way.

            Khan quoting Ahab

            “…to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee.”

            Without going ‘Ya get it? Moby Dick? White Whale thingy? People have heard of Moby Dick, right?”

            …which is pretty much what they did in First Contact.

            But if you GOT that Khan was quoting Ahab and that Kirk was like Moby Dick to Khan, in the sense that TO KHAN he either WAS or at least SYMBOLIZED all that was wrong with the universe and that he was damn well going to strike out at it regardless of the cost…

            Well… if you did get the reference in Wrath of Khan, great, if not, it was STILL a kickass death speech for Khan to make. Instead of running random Bartletts Quotations through a salad shooter shooting a nonsensical stream of profundities chopped up into tossed salad non sequiturs at the audience because you think they’re too dumb to understand anyway, you could run your story on multiple levels. Because everybody DOES get Moby Dick even if they don’t know it or can’t place the exact reference because it’s just one of those archetypical human stories – which is what scifi tries to be when it is good.

            “Vengeance on a dumb brute!” cried Starbuck, “that simply smote thee from blindest instinct! Madness! To be enraged with a dumb thing, Captain Ahab, seems blasphemous.”

            “Hark ye yet again – the little lower layer. All visible objects, man, are but as pasteboard masks. But in each event – in the living act, the undoubted deed – there, some unknown but still reasoning thing puts forth the mouldings of its features from behind the unreasoning mask. If man will strike, strike through the mask! How can the prisoner reach outside except by thrusting through the wall? To me, the white whale is that wall, shoved near to me. Sometimes I think there’s naught beyond. But ’tis enough. He tasks me; he heaps me; I see in him outrageous strength, with an inscrutable malice sinewing it. That inscrutable thing is chiefly what I hate; and be the white whale agent, or be the white whale principal, I will wreak that hate upon him. Talk not to me of blasphemy, man; I’d strike the sun if it insulted me.”

            One of the most awesome fucking couple paragraphs in literature. And in star trek 2, you don’t have to get that Khan’s son is Starbuck when he’s saying hey we have a ship, we’re free, let’s give up on pursuing this Kirk guy.

            Vs Picard going apparently mad right from the getgo and his companion having to very DIRECTLY mention Moby Dick… how far we have fallen.

            …and how kickass was it to make KIRK the evil white whale instead of having him play Ahab?

          • guest

            …so to sum up, original Trek movies did, for instance, an intertwining of classic literature such as Tale of Two Cities and Moby Dick into the character, plot and universe of the original series, the Next Generation movies heavyhandedly made DIRECT references to classics (See? It’s like a Space Moby Dick…) and Nu Trek makes cheap references to original Trek.

          • decora

            to sum it up, here’s 20 people piling shit on Lindelhof, who merely co-wrote star trek into darkness, while not one of them has named the writer(s) on the original star trek II

          • PegasusFantasy

            but Lindelof was the one who insisted on having Khan in the script

          • Alex Lee

            Right. A truly poor decision on his part and his admission of Carol’s Marcus’s unnecessary scene is really just a cover-up for the actual problems in the story.

          • Mark Bisone

            The film’s director Nicholas Meyer co-wrote “Wrath of Khan.” There’s somewhat of an interesting story behind why he didn’t originally get the credit for the screenplay, which had a bit to do with the studio politics at the time.

            That changes anyone’s point, how?

          • decora

            because then you would see 20 people clamoring for nicholas meyer to direct Episode VII instead of 20 people shitting on a commercially successfull writer Lindelof. something most of us would love to be and will never achieve.

            oh wait, Nick Meyer did Star Trek VI which also gets shit on by the likes of you.

            that changes the point considerably. is the whole point of this to shit on people? any great film you can name incvolved people who made other films you would shit on.

            the fact that there are people sitting around their basement with lindelof voodoo dolls is fucking idiotic. See above where someone jokes about killing him. HA HA hilarious.

            Mike actually fucking liked the movie…. while acknolwedging its flaws. Holy shit, something about the duality of man!!! Put down the Ouija board and stop pasting photos of Lindelof on your dartboard you insufferable cranks.

          • Mark Bisone

            Since when did I shit on Star Trek VI? Or on Star Trek IV, for that matter? Meyer directed all of three, and they were all fine films.

            The point isn’t to “shit on people.” The point is film criticism, and examining what makes a film work and not work. Imagine that… criticizing elements of film on a website known for film criticism.

            You say: “Mike actually fucking liked the movie…. while acknolwedging its flaws.”

            No. Mike only recommended the movie for general audiences, which he’s done before with movies he dislikes. He didn’t seem to like it personally, and the “flaws” he acknowledged had everything to do with the terrible writing.

            Nick Meyer has been out of action for awhile, but I’m sure that man could have several strokes and a massive brain injury, and still probably produce a better screenplay for Star Trek, Star Wars, Starbucks, Dancing with the Stars or a Broadway revival of Starlight Express than Damon Lindelof could ever dream of writing. Some of that is due to a wide and obvious gap in talent between those two guys, but there are probably other considerations. For instance, the pressure to sell big international (i.e. Chinese) markets means that the sort of idiomatic writing that would allow American and other Western audiences to feel closer to the material is now largely gone from studio pictures. The scenes and dialogue needs to be written much flatter, more “on-the-nose”, and less rich with cultural touchstones so that they are easier to translate and understand for Eastern audiences.

            Even with that being the case, it doesn’t excuse the excesses that keep cropping up in Lindelof’s work. The arbitrary references, the inconsistent characterizations, the obscurantist nonsense, the unearned, OTT drama that invites laughter, etc. On TV, when you have all the time in the world to waste and dither and string viewers along, these shortcomings don’t always come across — still, you saw the hugely negative response to the “Lost” finale, when everyone realized they’d been conned. In a feature film format, you don’t have that time to waste, and patience runs thin quick

            Basically, you need to be a good storyteller to write good, memorable feature films, and that means you need maturity and some sort of artistic perspective. Lindelof and Orci seem to lack these things. I think they know it, on some level, and that’s why they sprinkle their scripts with pretentious nonsense. It’s camouflage for poor storytelling, and poor understanding of the human condition.

            Meyer isn’t perfect, but he knows people and he knows how t tell a story. “Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan” has and will continue to stand the test of time as a great work of sci-fi cinema. “Prometheus” will only be remembered as one of Ridely Scott’s beautifully shot creative misses (he’s made a few of those; remember “Tristan and Isolde” and “1492″?).

            “Star Trek: Into Darkness” won’t be remembered at all.

          • ubermood

            I’m glad that part of my comments resonated with someone. I was afraid that by using “supercilious” I might seem supercilious—or pretentious or highfalutin or whatever. And I may be. I can admit to that.

            With regards to LOST, I have no problem with pop culture that draws inspiration from intellectual concepts and that maybe even deploys these concepts in a half-baked, half-understood way, as long as they provide the framework for a decent story. The story has to come first. And a good story doesn’t necessarily need meaningful closure. It can be a never-ending mystery whose whole point is to generate more questions than answers, to play with our basic human need to interpret and read meaning into everything. It’s a classic postmodern approach, going back to Kafka, many of whose stories were empty allegories, semblances of elusive meaning which always slip through your fingers. But Lindelof & co. put an end date on LOST and promised to wrap it all up in a satisfying way. They failed, by unnecessarily complicating things and muddling the story even further with an inept forwards-backwards-sideways-in-time structure. A story that relies on nonlinearity or alternate timelines runs the risk of deflating dramatic tension and therefore audience engagement. Chris Nolan can pull it off, Lindelof obviously can’t. I felt nothing during the final act of INTO DARKNESS (besides contempt) because it was just an alternate, inverted retelling of WRATH OF KHAN. A skilled screenwriter could perhaps use the alternate universe approach to recontextualize KHAN and add layers of meaning and emotional depth to both the classic TREK and the reboot timelines. But in Lindelof’s hands, INTO DARKNESS becomes a too-cute, winking parody of KHAN which is vacant at its core.

          • guest

            Yep, to create a beautiful mystery definitely CAN be a satisfying culmination of a movie or TV series. But it’s probably even harder to do than wrap things up meaningfully.

          • Alex Lee

            I wanted to disagree with this, but Lindeof is fond of vague writing. The only conclusion I can come up with Lindeof is that when he tries, he knows how to set up a story, but has trouble coming up with conclusions. “Payoffs” seem to be consistently disappointing to the audience.

            Unfortunately, he either didn’t try with this movie or he simply doesn’t have the skills necessary to write a simple narrative story with a tight, linear plot. I favor the former over the latter, given what is said in this review.

            http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/damon-lindelof-prometheus-vague-lost-sadistically-cool-334750

      • guest

        Oh! Oh! I’ve got it! A Lindelof-Micheal Bey pairing. Holy crap, would that be fantastic. Like an elephant turd is fantastic, but still! How can we make this happen?

    • decora

      L was a co-writer on this. for all we know they brought him in at the last minute to try to make the thing as passable as it is.

      Prometheus, btw, is a brilliant film, as long as they never have to make a sequel (kind of like Lost, great series as long as they dont need to have an ending)

      • Mark Bisone

        Lindelof as a script doctor? That’ll be the day…

        “Hey Damon, could you help us fix our script? The themes are much too coherent, the characters’ motivations make too much sense and the plot isn’t riddled with more holes than Sonny Corleone’s fucking corpse.”

      • Guest

        This is all getting too speculative, but Lindelof was also a producer on this TREK, so he was probably overseeing the writing from the get-go. It’s hard to tell, without being an insider. And maybe I’m being a bit hard on hit, but it was the last season of LOST and PROMETHEUS that turned me against him. PROMETHEUS was a beautiful film, an ambitious film, but nothing that happened or that the characters did made any goddam sense—the Red Letter guys have already covered this, to the point of absurdity, in their review of the film. This is a pattern for Lindelof: ambitious, high-concept, overly-complicated stories which implode because they’re built on shaky ground, because the storytelling fundamentals are off, diseased even. If he can’t write films that are conducive to sequels, then why is he the go-to guy for all of these major, multimillion-dollar franchises? That’s what I don’t understand. Like Abrams, he’s perfectly positioned to be the reboot king for all of the classic sci-fi franchises that we love—ALIENS, TREK, and, unfortunately, possibly STAR WARS:
        “I’d say over the next decade, you and I are going to get five Star Wars films, and it won’t be Episode VII, but I may be involved in one of them when the pressure isn’t as intense.”
        I cringe at the idea. We may have to take this guy out…

      • ubermood

        This is all getting too speculative, but Lindelof was also a producer on this TREK, so he was probably overseeing the writing from the get-go. It’s hard to tell, without being an insider. And maybe I’m being a bit hard on him, but it was the last season of LOST and PROMETHEUS that turned me against him. PROMETHEUS was a beautiful film, an ambitious film, but nothing that happened or that the characters did made any goddam sense—the Red Letter guys have already covered this, to the point of absurdity, in their review of the film. This is a pattern for Lindelof: ambitious, high-concept, overly-complicated stories which implode because they’re built on shaky ground, because the storytelling fundamentals are off, diseased even. If he can’t write films that are conducive to sequels, then why is he the go-to guy for all of these major, multimillion-dollar franchises? That’s what I don’t understand. Like Abrams, he’s perfectly positioned to be the reboot king for all of the classic sci-fi franchises that we love—ALIENS, TREK, and, unfortunately, possibly STAR WARS:
        “I’d say over the next decade, you and I are going to get five Star Wars films, and it won’t be Episode VII, but I may be involved in one of them when the pressure isn’t as intense.”
        I cringe at the idea. We may have to take this guy out…

      • Alex Lee

        But they are making a sequel of Prometheus.

        As Plinkett says, “Oh…”

    • Lindeloser

      I am baffled that he continues to be hired. He ruins everything he touches.

      • ubermood

        I agree, obviously. But I would also like to stress that my criticism of unbelievably lucky Lindy goes beyond counting the number of times that I shake or scratch my head. Narrative films are more difficult to get right than, say, documentaries or abstract, experimental films—there are so many elements that have to come together, so many things that could go wrong. It’s easy to nitpick apart almost any film, even sacred cows like the original STAR WARS trilogy—Wired’s takedown of the Battle of Hoth is comprehensive: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/02/battle-of-hoth/
        But it took 30 years for some obsessive geek with too much time on his hands to write that article, because the movie works, and the movie works because the story and characters are compelling. Movies are artifice, illusion—and with great (or even good) movies, the spell is too strong to be broken by the details. If you’re watching a film for the first time and spend most of that time counting continuity errors or rewriting scenes in your head, then that’s a clear sign that something fundamental is wrong (i.e., weak characters/dialogue/story).

  • John Dietl

    From this review I learned that it’s really important to wear your seatbelt, because if you don’t, a police officer will give you a ticket. And it certainly won’t be a fake ticket. This is really important! Real ticket!

    What is it with this site’s ad service, though? Can’t the ads have some variety? Can’t the ads be broadcast at a normal listening volume?

    I agree with the Half in the Bag consensus on Star Trek the Fast and the Furious, except that I think the action kinda sucked. I’m old, and I couldn’t tell what the fuck was happening during the fight scenes and the spaceship battle scenes. The shifting-gravity adventure scene and the warp-core repair scene were well done, though.

    The movie’s dialogue sucked.

    The characters were annoying. I know it’s a tall order to flesh out an ensemble cast in an action movie, but this is the freakin sequel. Is it too much to ask for the characters to act like human beings and not just punch-throwing catchphrase dispensers? I did like Sulu and Chekov, but maybe that was an artifact of their limited number of lines or that those characters never had famous catchphrases and the screenwriters had to write dialogue for them.

    I could extend this screed for hours, but fuck that.

    I spent too much of this movie with face firmly in palm. Khaaaaaaannnn!

  • Josh

    I’d love to hear thoughts on Gatsby.

  • Dean

    Why did they give Skyfall a rave review? That was just a rehash of previous Bond movies with a nonsensical plot about a London bombing. It seems like the 3 of them in a room just piled on the hate, Into Darkness was a decent Trek movie. Name an action movie that’s 100% free of plot holes, if you micro-analyze it, it doesn’t exist. God forbid anyone might point out the logic holes in the Dark Knight, and you could say the Joker was used as a villain already, the same as Khan.

    • 715

      Because Skyfall’s nods were with a twist because the movie is more about if James Bomb and all the stuff we know and love needed in today’s setting.

      Into Darkness is just nods for fans, there was no reason they were needed. Not helped by Abram’s saying he didn’t want to just rehash only to do a shot for shot, word for word remake of the ending of Wrath of Khan.

      Into Darkness isn’t a decent Trek Movie its a decent action movie. Ever seen the show? Star Trek isn’t know for good action its know for good rounded characters and themes. Like they said the characters were weak and 2d only elevated by the actors.

      This is what Star Trek is about http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjJN08uqt70 Not explosions and GCI and yelling KHAAN!

      • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

        James Bomb? GCI? Not sure it you’re joking or randomly misspell words and acronyms.

      • decora

        kudos 715, great, great clip.

      • Dean

        It’s a mixed bag, could have had stronger dialogue and character arcs, but not as horrible as they make it out, when they forgive the same flaws in other movies. I don’t like how the writers have made Spock an emotional hothead, Leonard Nimoy was much better. But the whole mid-warp ship battle was new and exciting. I was on a rush still the next day after seeing this movie, that’s a kind of movie magic too.

        I know you don’t get much approval here unless you despise the movie, but I just want to say your comparison to The Drumhead is a little ridiculous. Yes, I’ve seen every episode of TNG. There were many episodes that were simply action plots or just a problem on the ship as well. The last movie that tried to have themes like the show was Insurrection, and was hated for being “just another episode” of the series. They’ve all been action movies except I and IV, do you really expect people to pay $10 a theater ticket or more to see a Star Trek courtroom drama? They also don’t give it enough credit for being topical to issues of today as the best Star Trek was. Kirk not lobbing missiles onto a foreign planet to catch a terrorist seems like more than a dumb action movie plot.

      • Dean

        Funny you chose this clip, that’s a great speech, but there WAS a speech very similar to it at the film’s end: “There will always be those who mean to do us harm. To stop them, we risk awakening the same evil within ourselves.” No one makes a speech like Sir Patrick, though.

    • decora

      if you had joker in Dark Knight saying “Did you ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight”, and also have a little toybox that laughs, that would be a more apt comparison with this film.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

    I like how they were fighting right beside the moon yet the gravity of the Earth is what pulled them in. Haha.

    • Haitchpeasauce

      I like how big these moons are compared to their planets, and how close they orbit the planets. Expect massive tides and catastrophic weather.

      Don’t forget that when you fall along with your ship, you will feel like you are in zero gravity. Didn’t Abrams watch Inception?

      • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

        I was thinking that while they were falling. “So, their power is out, wouldn’t that mean artificial gravity is out as well? It must mean so because they are tossing and turning with the ship… although they should be weightless as they’re falling at the same rate as the shi- OH SCREW IT THIS MOVIE DOESN’T CARE ABOUT SCIENCE!…”

  • Geralt

    Apparently I need to see this movie again, because what H.i.t.B thought was going on with the torpedoes was NOT what I thought was going on. I thought the Admiral put the torpedoes on the Enterprise and set it after Khan to achieve 3 goals at once.

    1) The torpedoes were armed. Kirk would launch them at Khan’s position and they would explode. Khan would be dead. The person in the torpedo would be dead.

    2) The Klingons would retaliate. The Enterprise would be destroyed and the Klingon Empire would declare ar.

    3) The remaining super-people would be destroyed. All 72 would either be detonated when launched in combat and/or destroyed with the Enterprise.

    I did not see a plot hole here.

    • http://www.facebook.com/joe.anstett.18 Joe Anstett

      How did he know all 72 would be launched, and not just 1, 5, or 10?

      Since when does the Enterprise have side-mounted torpedo bays? Is it a 17th century Spanish Galleon? Does that mean it has 36 missiles on the port side and 36 on the starboard side? Does that mean it would have to turn around 180 degrees to fire the 2nd bunch of missiles?

      Both ships were in Klingon space for a long time and the Klingons didn’t come knocking. Why didn’t the Klingons retaliate for the incursion let alone TWO starships in their space?

      • Geralt

        If you read my post again, you will see all 72 did not need to be launched. They could’ve launched 1 and then when the Klingon’s came to attack the disabled Enterprise the other 71 would be destroyed with the ship.
        The Klingon’s did not attack because Enterprise did not launch the torpedo. They had no idea the Enterprise was on their doorstep until the landing crew showed up. But those Klingon’s all got shot dead so they couldn’t report back.
        Next time don’t waste time with elaborate Spanish Galleon insults. It just demonstrated you wanted to be an ass, not discuss. Oh . . . and it failed.

        • http://people.ign.com/gameguy523 Anthony (Gameguy)

          I was under that exact impression as well.

        • PegasusFantasy

          Seriously? The Klingons don’t have any kind of sensors?
          They can’t detect a Starfleet Ship orbiting their planet FOR HOURS?
          And a shuttle launching from it and landing on their planet?
          But somehow they would detect a tiny payload-less torpedo detonation?

    • Lindeloser

      Khan says he did it in secret. Which means the Admiral wouldn’t know what’s in the torpedoes. Yet later, when Kirk taunts him about it on the bridge, he seems to know.

      So which is it!? Why the hell would Khan put his own people inside the torpedoes if he expected them to be used? If Admiral Robocop wanted the other 72 super people dead why did he need to shoot them inside torpedoes instead of just KILLING THEM IN THEIR SLEEP? Why not just give the Enterprise 72 empty torpedoes after having executed all the sleeping people?

      No possibility makes any fucking sense. It has the foul stench of Lindelof all over it.

  • mk741

    http://rateyourmusic.com/film/star_trek_into_darkness/

    ^ I wrote a review here.

    The film’s main problem is that it feels completely inconsequential. Hell, the ending is like your average ending to a sitcom. Every problem is wrapped up perfectly and like Rich mentioned, the narrative is nothing more than things happening, which are loosely linked together.

    A terrible film to be perfectly blunt, and it felt like an utter waste of time. Abrams’ action first-character development never direction is completely impersonal and Lindeloff’s writing can only be called a joke.

    Endless sarcastic quips < Earnest storytelling with character development and human dialogue.

  • hafabee

    I actually liked it, and I don’t normally go for big dumb action movies. But this was coherent, well acted, well executed and it was surprisingly funny (funnier than a lot of comedies I’ve recently seen). The Kirk death scene really rubbed me the wrong way though, and from that point on the movie really lost steam with me, but overall I liked it. Unlike Mike and company here I also thought that Chris Pine did a great job.

  • Haitchpeasauce

    This film was fun? No!

    If and when an action flick is lacking substance, some kind of theme, or a driving plot device, then it is at least carried by personality and dialogue.

    Take for example Die Hard, which had a very simple story and no lofty theme. It was just a guy trying to survive using his wits. What carried the film was the characters, that they were distinct and interesting and made sense.

    ST:ID’s personalities were mainly loud, shouty, and inconsistent, except for Scotty and to a lesser extent Khan’s. Nothing that happened in the movie made me care at all, except the horror of the number of people who died inside the buildings smashed by a starship that should’ve broken up on reentry. But we’re used to that by now.

    Even then I couldn’t help but be distracted by the rubbish kiddy plot and total disregard for distance/time/space/physics that were the hallmark of Star Trek. They comes out of the warp speed because the baddie shot the Enterprise but they beat the baddie but now they’re too close to Earth so they start falling, and their artificial gravity fails and that makes the gravity change. By the way, when you and your vessel all fall at the same time you have the experience of floating!

    A little Spielbergian time distortion or bending of rules is necessary for the sake of tension but this movie had no tension in it at all. They say Abrams directing is about the feeling of the moment, but he cut far too many corners for the sake of “drama” that it took me out of the moment continually.

    • Haitchpeasauce

      All that being said, I’m looking forward to Abrams directing Star Wars. After watching ST:ID, he’s definitely the most suited to continue the Star Wars legacy in the same spirit of the prequels (and Lindelof doing the writing). I might even come to think that Lucas isn’t such a hack after all.

      • DON’T FRET !IT’S AN OPINION !

        ST : ID is to similar to STD,sexually transmitted disease.

        If you like Star Trek into Darkness you are not doing it any favors by this abbreviation.

        And no he is not “the most suited”. There are better directors out there.

        I would like them to show some guts and put a complete unknown to do it.But it’s safer to go with somebody who will certainly bring in the moneyzz.

        • Shotgun Ted

          In your race to flame, I think you might have missed his sarcastic point by a few light years or so.

        • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

          You should direct the next Star Wars movie. Your fine attention to detail [like picking up the not-so subtle sarcasm in that comment] will take you far! :D

    • Craig Dohmen

      Actually, yes, it was fun. In fact, I think this is some of the best Trek we’ve ever had. So there. :-b

  • Fart Noise

    Did you notice how Kirk & Uhura had a five-minute conversation in the turbolift? I think they actually watched your 2009 review and saw you riffing on the Instant Turbolift, and went “Fuck, they’re right!”

    But yeah, movie sucked harder than the $4 hooker who hangs out behind the bowling alley near my house. Speaking of which, I’m off to the bowling alley near my house.

    • http://www.facebook.com/joe.anstett.18 Joe Anstett

      I was watching for the direction of the turbolift to change and it didn’t. So they still failed. It only went up.

      • Haitchpeasauce

        The turbolifts took exactly the time the scene’s dialogue went for.

        It was also no problem for Kirk, Khan, and Scotty to run the entire length of the Vengeance (horrible name!) from the hangar bay to the bridge. No ladders, no turbo lifts. The ship was what, three times the size of the Enterprise? It would’ve taken a long, loooong time. Enough time for Admiral Marcus to restore all weapon systems.

        • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

          Um, Kurt, Kan’t, and Scooter used magical plot-resolvium! How did you not know that? PAY CLOSER ATTENTION.

      • Bill T

        Not so. Reviewing the scene carefully, it’s clear that the turbolift remains motionless, while the entire movie collapses around it.

    • William Shakesman

      Which makes you wonder why the turbolifts have become SLOWER since the first movie….

  • Lamon Dindelof

    Nice ad blocker message, I don’t really care enough about what you think to sit through 90 seconds of nothingness.

    • kjellmakrell

      90 seconds of silence beats 30 seconds of stupid advertisment any day.

      Pro-tip: Start video, then do something completely different for 90 seconds, then watch video.

      • jic1

        Or you could turn off the adblocker, do something else for only 30 seconds, and help fund these videos at the same time.

        • octopussy

          Holy crap you’ve got my head exploding here, you mean I can fund these things by letting the ads run – for just 30 seconds at a stretch??? These things that I like to watch, I can like, help create some sort of incentive to make more of them? And then I can watch even more of them for my further entertainment?

          eh, still not getting it. Gosh I hate these ads. Why do they exist? It’s just a plot to annoy people isn’t it?

    • decora

      thats what your mom says to your dad every nigjht. OHhhh!!!

  • Joey

    There’s a deeper meaning behind what looks like a paper thin plot. Abrams wouldn’t just add that dedication to the post-9/11 vets for no reason.

    • Joey

      Either way, i felt that this was Abrams’ Wrath of Khan and his interpretation and it was executed well IMO. Yes, every major film has plot holes and unless it involves a very linear storyline, it shouldn’t dictate the overall film. I enjoyed and moved by the twist of Kirk’s death scene and the roll reversal.

      If Abrams can move me with Star Trek, i can only imagine how badly i’ll start bawling when he finally shows Chewbacca’s death scene in the new Star Wars trilogy.

      • Jev

        Except Chewbacca will be saved with some superman blood.

      • whocares

        Chewbaccas death scene…

        You pulp-reading-star-wars-jacen-solo-luke-marrying-mara-jade-clone-emperor-admiral-thrawn-fanboys. I hope they won’t include or even hint at any of that stupid shit, written by untalented drooling pimple-faced star wars geeks.

        Yeah, you heard me.

      • Anthony Pirtle

        How can you possibly be moved by a death scene you’ve seen before, done better, in a better film?

        • PegasusFantasy

          not to mention being meaningless, as kirk coming back to life in the next 10 minutes was broadcasted pretty well

      • decora

        you mean like, when the guy has to go into a radiation chamber to save the ship and risk his own life? and where someone objects, and he knocks them out? and when he is dying the guy on the bridge gets a message saying ‘youd better get down here?’ and when they have a touching speech through glass b/c hed flood the whole compartment if he opened it? as pointed out by scotty?

        yes. JJ Abrams truly had a unique, shall i say even, totally original take on star trek ii. although he borrowed the plot, the beats, the emotions, the characters, and the dialogue, he used much more lense flare.

    • Lemon Aidez

      A 9/11 allegory? How fresh and original. Very brave too, to touch such a subject only a decade after it happened.

      • chris moll

        it is still happening, we are still at war

      • decora

        when i saw those buildings get smashed by an airship commandeered by a terrorist pilot, it took me right back to that fateful september day. then when i heard the guy from the romantic CIA comedy tell us we shoudln’t act from vengeance, it was like i was voting for hope and change all over again.

        • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

          Does it really matter that he was also in… whatever movie where he played a CIA chasing after Witherspoon with Hardy [I honestly forget the name and too lazy to search it]?

    • hafabee

      Into Darkness is not really a 9/11 allegory, but rather one of the deteriorating morality in the internal and external policies of the United States since 9/11.

  • Tom

    Your review made a lot of good points and the plot was very unwieldy at points

    However, it’s interesting that Half in the Bag missed the political underlying message to this film as it relates to the War on Terror. Jocky Kirk’s ending speech was almost spelling out that a society more concerned in security will sacrifice any foundational freedoms.

    Also Mike and Jay seem to be immune from ever being in the stupid masses group. Good to see Half in the Bag is so much better and are always the exception.

    • Anthony Pirtle

      No one missed it. It was just so shallow and ridiculous that it didn’t matter.

    • decora

      they have talked about this stuff before. for example in star wars III lucas used lines straight from Bush and the war on terror. this is almost in that territory. maybe they cut it from the review (can we hope for na extended blu ray directors cut?)

  • roteeneggcreations

    surprised you didn’t catch the fact kahn got caught trying to smuggle his people and it was the commanders plan to have kirk fire the missiles at kahn as a brutal way to exact his revenge on him before killing kirk and his crew.
    I agree though about needing new things for these characters to do. I haven’t seen star trek II Wrath of Kahn, But just like superman lets have something new dammit!
    .

  • Now I Get It

    “What does that guy [Nimoy] need cash for? He’s like 89 years old. What, does he need a bigger headstone?”
    Like a line out of “Archer”. In fact, that whole exchange on Nimoy’s casting was just plain…pretty.

  • Barbari

    I think you guys missed part of the story, Khan wanted to smuggle people out in the missiles but was caught and admiral robocop wanted to get rid of the evidence of the super humans by shooting the torpedos….so that’s why khan gave up so they wouldn’t shoot and kill them all

    • Janice

      yeah but if he knew the admiral’s plan, why play into it? Why not beam to the Klingon moon and send them a surrender message in order to get them in a range. And if the device was coded only to let him go to the Klingon home world, then what was served by his secrecy. Just tell them about the people in the torpedoes because God forbid, the crew just shot one into an asteroid. There was no logic in this movie, man.

      • PegasusFantasy

        i think the writers themselves don’t know

    • Anthony Pirtle

      How was the admiral supposed to have those torpedoes shot if he knew they had no fuel?

  • Bowman T Bowman

    I liked “Star Trek: Into Darkness”, but now I’m annoyed with myself for doing so. Also, I’m surprised that you didn’t bring up Alice Eve taking off her clothes in the shuttle for no apparent reason (not that I’m complaining).

    In closing, I would like someone to address the facial-hair continuity issue that the hosts present. Thanks.

    • snqrls end

      i had the exact same question. (alice eve that is).

    • decora

      its like in girl 6, when spike lee had the main actress take her clothes off, to comment on the horrible sexism of the industry, etc etc etc etc whatever

  • Janice

    The allegory was so sloppy unfortunately. It makes sense, the whole white washing thing, in that if youre making a bin laden allegory, youre going to veil that from the mainstream audience. But the whole big government creates terrorism, let’s not react to it, didnt parallel to the story of any of the characters. In the end, Khan was just some unkillable superior jackass who still didnt get a trial. They locked him and his crew in a warehouse with all that immortality creating blood…sounds rife for another scandal. And you guys got the technology issue dead on. Khan wasnt some technical genius or some savage who discounts intelligence: he’s a Hannibal/Napoleon leader. The problem was that Kirk, as the main character, didnt learn or change. Things happened around him and technically Spock should have become Captain, as Kirk gave up his chair and seemed to take his cues from the mind meld bleed from the former movie. He didn’t make any real smart choices or anything that makes someone a hero– in fact he saves the day by kicking the machinery…the tech. JJ ruined by making it look like the guts of a Transformer. This film was just graceless. So sad. Orci not only dropped the ball…he kicked it out of bounds so no talented crew can create a reboot of worth. But with all movies and especially Star Trek, smart is key. And that just isn’t happening anymore. I mean look at the scene with the Klingons, Kirk starts off deciding to pretend to be arms dealers to protect the Federation ( an episode reference) but then immediately gives up. I hope someone else picks up the fandom…because as it starts…a government started aggression with another race and then sent their flagship away.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jonah-Falcon/525044162 Jonah Falcon

    J.J. Abrams: And again, it’s like poetry, it’s sort of, they rhyme.
    Every stanza kind of rhymes with the last one. Hopefully it’ll work.

    (Does ANYONE get the Mr. Plinkett Star Wars/George Lucas reference? Sheesh.)

    • snqrls end

      Thankfully abrams is a better director than lucas, otherwise this film could have turned out much worse

      • decora

        khaaaaaaaaaaannnnn

      • Haitchpeasauce

        Vader: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

    • Guest

      Does anyone get it?

      You mean regurgitating lines from Plinkett reviews, as has been a standard meme around here for years? You think they didn’t get it?

      Maybe the majority have finally gotten tired of constantly regurgitating those ridiculous lines over and over.. Welcome to the party Jonah.. better late than never!

      • Bill T

        Except the “they rhyme” quote applies perfectly to this movie, to an extent Lucas never even dreamed of. Spock: “Khaaaaaaan!” Darth Vader: “Noooooooo!”

    • decora

      youd better get down here. hurry.

    • PegasusFantasy
  • Jenny

    We need a proper Plinkett review of this film.

  • Sigh

    Star Trek is now the rotting corpse paramount keeps in the cellar for when they get their urges.

  • Andy Mcewan

    shame you did talk to much about the predators..eh i mean the klingons, the one thing that really bugged me and made me 100% that this was made for the dumb masses was they spelt the klingon planet wrong, all i could think about in the cinema was Indiana Jones the last crusade with Sean connery saying but in klingon kronos starts with a Q

    • Guest

      Uh, actually that was a later thing to give it a name in an alien language while also writing off the original “Kronos” as an Anglicised version of the name.

    • Craig Dohmen

      I read this in the voice of Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons.

    • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

      “shame you did talk to much about the predators…”
      “…made me 100% that this was made for the dumb masses…”
      “…Indiana Jones the last crusade with Sean connery…”

      To prove you’re smarter than those dumb masses, you decide to adopt their lack of proper spelling and grammar. BRILLIANT!

  • gwest

    I loved the movie. I watched every series since TNG and I loved it from beginning to end. All the actors, the spaceship, the music, the camera… everything.

    • whip

      That’s unfortunate.

      Unfortunate not that you like a bad movie.

      Unfortunate that you are the kind of brainwashed fans that these guys directly pander to, and don’t even realize it.

      That’s more sad. By far.

  • JoeJoe

    Checkov can’t transport a moving person??!! The lazy fucks didn’t even watch the first movie — that was his only reason to exist in the plot.

    • Joey

      The only reason why Checkov was able to beam Kirk and Zulu in the first film has to do with physics. When an object falls for a certain period of time it will start to fall at a fixed rate, 9.8 m/s (that’s only accounting for Earth’s gravity and not Vulcan’s due to their increased gravity of the planet).

      Meaning, when you keep falling for a certain period of time, you stay at the same speed. Checkov was able to compensate for the gravity (you can hear him say this in the film) and was then able to transport them back to the Enterprise. Same goes with Scotty’s equation for transporting people to spaceships in warp because in warp speed, The Enterprise was flying at a constant speed. In the film Into Darkness, Khan and Spock were constantly moving around, that’s why it was much more difficult to beam them back, rather than beaming someone to where they were.

      • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

        “When an object falls for a certain period of time it will start to fall at a fixed rate, 9.8 m/s.”

        It’s roughly 9.8 m/s^2, which is the acceleration, not the speed. The terminal velocity, which would be when objects start moving at a roughly fixed rate, depends on gravity, the size/shape/mass of the object, the atmosphere, etc.

        I doubt the writers put that much thought into the movie, though.

        • Joey

          thanks for the correction, but it still makes my point sound.

          • jic1

            No it doesn’t. It makes it clear that their rate of fall would be in no way “fixed”.

          • Joey

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGNfrNJZin4

            Hear Checkov say “Compensating gravitational pull” in this scene and tell me that he wasn’t using physics to lock onto Kirk and Zulu in order to beam them back to the ship.

            Yes terminal velocity is a rough fixed rate and It’s not easy beaming someone, but it’s certainly alot easier than to beam two men fighting and moving about randomly on top of a moving vehicle.

          • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

            I’m not trying to debunk your point. :P

        • Alex Lee

          The writers didn’t research what cold fusion is, despite the existence of Wikipedia and Smartphones.

      • whip

        It’s funny how technology works in the new Trek universe.

        When it suits the plot for it to be finicky technology, then we’ll go with that.. for the drama!

        But when it suits the plot for it to be magical and all powerful, to get us out of bad story corners.. or to relieve the tension caused seconds earlier by ridiculous hyper-drama.. then it’s ok.. we’ll let it be all powerful.

        The key words here are.. “when it suits the plot”. As Plinkett says about the Borg in his First Contact reviews: “I guess they are whatever the plot needs them to be”.

        • Tomas P.

          As if there was no silly logic in original series. There were plenty by the way.

          • whip

            I didn’t say there was.

            You make the cardinal mistake that so many do, of forgiving crap because there was also crap in the past. Hey folks, police chief here.. Yes, there are 812 murders in our fine city this year.. but hey, last year at this date it was 842 murders. So while we are doing bad, we aren’t doing as bad as we used to. That’s worth something!

            Puhlease. Past failures are in no way excuses for current ones.

            Hell I practically admitted it was not a unique to this movie problem, when I brought up the First Contact review.

            Some of you are just so determined to love this crap movie, you’ll say anything. You dont’ really think about it. Just attack attack.

          • Hurler

            This is what I keep saying! They pulled a lot of things out of their asses in the original series and beyond. I don’t know why people defend it like it’s the holy grail.

      • JoeJoe

        Wrong, fucko! Guess your forgot the admiral’s daughter was transported while running in this very movie?

        Don’t make silly excuses for shit writing.

        • Joey

          Did you not realize that the Admiral’s ship was a far superior and more advanced ship than the Enterprise? I’m sure it must have tech that allows them to beam moving objects.

          • PegasusFantasy

            yes, the Vengeance has magic teleporter technology too, it even bypasses shields when beaming Carol off the enterprise.

            Begs the question as to why does Khan need Spock to lower them later?

          • guest

            If Vengeance has magic teleporter technology that can bypass shields, WHY DOES IT HAVE MISSILES??? Presumably a bomb blowing up inside a ship does more damage than a missile hitting its hull or shields.

          • Joey

            Perhaps it’s only limited to just small objects when the shields were up. Unlike 72 torpedoes.

          • Joey Fails at Physics

            You’re point is still stupid and the writing is shit. The writers could have easily pulled the “… there’s too much interference” line instead of using something that 100% contradicts a character’s abilities.

            There is a zillion times more entropy in two falling objects in a foreign atmosphere and gravity, with massive convection currents, on a planet that’s about to fucking explode than people on a ship moving at constant speed. You’ve failed at physics 3 times in a row. Care to make it a fourth?

          • Joey

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v

            Hear Checkov say “Compensating gravitational pull” in this scene and tell me that he wasn’t using physics to lock onto Kirk and Zulu in order to beam them back to the ship.

            Yes terminal velocity is a rough fixed rate and It’s not easy beaming someone, but it’s certainly alot easier than to beam two men fighting and moving about randomly on top of a moving vehicle.

  • Real World First

    If these people would take the time to learn about some real stuff going on in the world, rather than making a living as parasites off the movie biz, they might discover that 9/11 was indeed an “inside job” or at least not what the news says it was.

    I don’t appreciate the condescending joke at the end. I am not schizophrenic.

    • guest

      PLEASE TELL ME MORE

    • Nate

      I think they characterized the “9/11 was an inside job” lunatics pretty well.

    • PegasusFantasy

      Well Orci agrees with you.

      You should tweet him up

    • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

      “I don’t appreciate the condescending joke at the end.”

      I hope they make more jokes at your expense now.

    • decora

      what are you talking about? Rich Evans is one of the top 9/11 scholars and was finally able to ‘come out’ on an official RLM channel. This is bigger than when Ellen came out.

      • jic1

        “Rich Evans is one of the top researchers in the 9/11 truth community.”

        Please tell me that’s a joke at Real World First’s expense. If it’s true, it would depress the crap out of me.

        • Bill T

          The collapse of Building 7 made more sense than this movie.

  • Rickie

    I totally thought they were actually going to do an ethics plot once Khan said that he was betrayed by Admiral Robocop, and that Kirk had to choose whom to trust and whom to help.

    Instead, explosions happened.

  • http://people.ign.com/gameguy523 Anthony (Gameguy)

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Khan believe Marcus killed his people before Kirk and the others chased after him? I thought the reason he attacked the records library was so that he could obtain the trans-warp beaming device. That way, he could attack the Starfleet officers and then escape to Kronos where he thought they wouldn’t come after him. I was under the impression that he was actually very surprised when Sulu threatened to kill him with the missiles, because he looked shocked when Spock told them they were carrying 72 of them.

    So he allowed himself to be captured, so that he could either convince Kirk to give him back the missiles (like he says — If Kirk did not have a conscience, he would not be able to convince him of the truth), or infiltrate the Enterprise and get them back. But Marcus screwed all that up after he learned Kirk had spared Khan.

    • PegasusFantasy

      If you go with that explanation then:

      “escape to Kronos where he thought they wouldn’t come after him.”

      is really demented, as Marcus’ plan involves provoking a war with the Klingons, therefore Khan plays right into his plan.

      Ergo, Khan is a moron. Plot convenience.

      • snqrls end

        Perhaps you noticed neither kirk or spock reaffirmed what they’re being told – that usually means there’s deception at play. We never did get the full story, so saying it was a plot contrivance is doing the film a disservice; if you use your head, khan likely knew he’d be tracked, so him and the admiral must have been in coherts to kill the council and instigate a war. That makes perfect sense considering what we were shown and the character archetypes hitherto

        • PegasusFantasy

          did you even read my comment?
          i was pointing out that khan going rogue from the start makes less sense than being in cohorts with marcus till kronos and the 72 torpedoes reveal.

          But i like it how you equate
          it dont make sense=clever intelligent writing

  • Killerprise NCC-1701

    I feel so dirty NOT using AdBlock. Those commercials are indeed 30 seconds long… two ads at 30 seconds is actually a minute. And the commercial’s volume is 30dB louder than the video.
    I’ll just give money straight to them and keep blocking the blipverts.

    • decora

      thanks for sharing. i personally have colo-rectal cancer, and its hard to get RLM in the hospital because the wifi doesnt reach my corner of the ward. But i promised to give a male nurse a handjob if he would let me plug into the ethernet. So a few squirts later and I”m able to watch Mike cross his arms and listen to The Evans.

  • Anthony Pirtle

    Thank you for this review. I am so sick of the plaudits for this awful film.

    • imaginaryGHOST

      Exactly. It really was awful, and I’m shocked by all the critical praise it’s getting,

      • snqrls end

        Deserves the credit in my mind; despite the ending, it’s better than the average blockbuster, like cowboys and aliens, or oblivion. It just needs a bit of attention and less bias to get the full experience

        • PegasusFantasy

          funny you should mention cowboys’n’aliens, as it was written by the same hacks.

          Also, Transformers and T:ROTF

        • imaginaryGHOST

          Bias? Lol, you mean viewing the movie with an objective eye based on its own merits? That’s bias to you? I liked the first one on a purely entertainment level btw, so I dunno how bias comes into play here. It’s just a piece of shit.

          • Bill T

            Abrams Trek II: Out Of Excuses

  • Yezzah

    Gene Roddenberry conceived of Star Trek as an answer to the 50-60s early shlock sci-fi with big space bugs and flying saucers. Star Trek brought a new look to science fiction where space isn’t the enemy to be conquered as a constant threat, born out of our own xenophobia as a culture, but as a place where we could explore and learn more about life and ourselves etc. Today Star Trek is nothing more than a reversion into the mindlessness into action for it’s own sake. J.J. Abrams has, by his own admission, no appreciation for Star Trek and the very reason it was created. He is simply an industry hack milking a concept he never understood to turn out more Hollywood shlock. What a sad opportunity missed with these reboots.

    • snqrls end

      This one film, despite being ‘action shlock’, perhaps captured the tone of the original better than seven seasons of tng: it used action sequences well, it had better characters, better script (aside from the ending), and a more realistic and intelligent depiction of what starfleet would look like in that era. Granted a lot of it was complimented by modern technology and 150 million dollar graphics, but your stitled commentary doesn’t help the flow of information.

      • Yezzah

        I don’t think it captured the tone of the original at all. If you go back and view the old Treks, most of them had SOME action but not overloaded. They mostly discussed the best way to proceed and at the end of each episode it got around to philosophy, how humans were advanced but had much more growth to achieve (ie, “yours is a violent race” and all that stuff). The newer films disgard that aspect almost completely in favor of villain-of-the-moment gimmicks that Roddenberry was trying to get away from.

        • Hurler

          That’s because action is expensive and television isn’t for that. Original trek is definitely slow. But it also has horrible special effects, cheap-looking sets, and some really bad episodes. Quit defending it so much, it’s not that golden…

          • Yezzir!

            I actually kind of like the horrible special effects. It’s part of the charm. Anyway, it’s not really about defending the original episodes, but I would like to see some of Roddenberry’s original idea incorporated. It’s just ironic that he was trying to take sci-fi and evolve it, and now it is devolving with these reboots into mindless action. I have no problem with action, I would just like it to exist within a larger more meaningful framework.

      • Yezzah

        The key thing here is exploration. Enterprise is not a ship of war, but of exploration. We have had none of that so far…

        • Bill T

          This isn’t a ship of war… this is a ship of peace. Wait a minute… something’s not right… something’s changed…

      • Alex Lee

        Abrams’ Trek never captured the tone of TOS. If anything, that would be the first thing he would avoid doing because he doesn’t like Star Trek in the first place.

    • BYODB

      An interesting point I hadn’t thought of.

      That means the next movie should involve a giant space bug, that would bring everything full circle. It’s ironic, the hipster kids will love it.

      Call it Trek Wars. Heck, just shorten it to Tek Wars.

      Wait, I’m seeing two Shatners…is this supposed to happen?

      • Bill T

        If the next movie cast Shatner as the villain, and the plot involved saving the Federation from priceline, it would still probably be a better script than ST:ID.

    • Hurler

      Yezzir: while reading your comment it was pretty easy to imagine the hipster from this half-in-the-bag saying every word of it. “Stupid hacks….hollywood schlock….stupid reboots.” etc. Seriously, it wasn’t that bad. You have to admit the production value is pretty high on this, and I was impressed by everything visually. You can’t just say they are hacking it together and call that your take on it. That’s what a lazy, schloky, hack-job internet troll would do.

  • Anthony Pirtle

    Lazy is the perfect word for this film. They constantly took the easy way out. Look at the resurrection of Kirk vs the resurrection of Spock. One guy I know said “Well Khan’s magic blood isn’t more unbelievable than the Genesis device.” Sure, but the fact that they developed the Genesis device as a central plot point of two consecutive films made it believable. The magic blood was an element of this film for a few minutes at the beginning, and then for a few minutes at the end. It was just a short cut to get back to action.

    Its the same thing with Khan being the villain. They didn’t want to waste precious screen time for actually developing the villain, like they did in Wrath of Khan. They just used him as short hand for “very very bad guy.” Total waste of the greatest badguy in the original trek universe.

    • decora

      And they re-use exact sequences and dialogue from II.

      “Spock, you better get down here”, to the radiation chamber, that your friend climbed into, to save the ship, sacrificing his own life. It’s not just the same plot, it’s the same f**** beats on screen, and even the same dialogue. It’s so bad, so so very bad. Almost like if Return of the Jedi had Lando fly down a trench in an X-wing fighter, and then Luke comes down in a Corellian transport, saves him, from Darth Vader’s tie fighter, and says ‘lets blow this thing so we can go home’.

      Think about it. At least Lucas had the sense to change up stuff a little. But here we have Exactly The Same Dialogue in Exacly The Same Scenario. Its bizarre,

      Also If blood transfusions could save them from this, why didn’t Kirk do it for Spock in II???

      • Bill T

        It’s like poetry, they rhyme. Every stanza kind of rhymes with the last one. Hopefully it’ll work.

    • Alex Lee

      The sad thing is that John Harrison would have stood well as his own villain. But we’re stuck comparing him to Ricardo Montalban every time we bring up this movie. Hence, bad writing and logic.

      As a whole, this whole movie should have focused on developing the universe it just created. For example, Spock could have left Starfleet in order to research ways to combat the imbreeding his race will inevitably suffer from. Meanwhile, the Klingons see an opportunity to invade because the Federation is suffering a manpower shortage. The Enterprise is placed into a rag-tag task force to intercept, but failed due to being “out-manned and out-gunned.” The war goes very badly, but Young Spock doesn’t really care because he’s single-minded. At some point, he is convinced (probably by Spock Prime or Uhura) that he has to rejoin Starfleet and focus on finding out the Achilles’ Heel of the invasion fleet and informing the Enterprise of it. Kirk makes a valiant “last stand” speech and go for broke against the Achilles’ Heel and ultimately win despite the severe damage to the ship and crew (maybe Bones gets killed off here).

      Is it perfect? I doubt it, but at least it actually is interested in doing an action plot without ripping off entire WOK scenes and emotions.

  • Anthony Pirtle

    But Khan took out all the fuel and replaced them with people. So they couldn’t fire the missiles, because the missiles had no fuel. So there’s no ability to shoot even one, let alone 72. The whole story makes no sense.

    • chris moll

      They wouldn’t need fuel. Since it is in space once they are launched they would continue to travel forever until they hit something. And they are not missiles, they are torpedoes.

      • getcher fax

        Uhhh… Are you SURE they are using dumb kinetically accelerated sublight speed torpedoes with no onboard targeting/guidance as their superweapons? I hope these were only intended for inaccurate planetary bombardment and not to battle with warp speed capable starships ie targets capable of maneuver and travelling multiple times the speed of light.

        • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

          Stop making sense, dammit! But yeah, a lot of this movie leaves you scratching your head. “Did they even get any outside help with this script? Did no one say anything about all thees mistakes?”

    • Hurler

      Yeah, I wasn’t sure exactly why people were in the torpedoes and how that was supposed to work well for anybody. It didn’t make a lot of sense and is probably the biggest problem with the film in my eyes. It’s almost like they did it JUST so they could have Spock trick Khan with them.

  • tim89

    I respect their opinion and that of everyone else here, but I really don’t think this film was near as bad as everyone is making it out to be. I am only a casual Star Trek fan, so maybe that has something to do with it..(?)
    Was there action? Yes. Was it the center of the movie? No. Believe me, I am sick and tired of actions movies with action just for the sake of action. I liked this movie, because the action revolved around the story rather than vice versa. This is an element that I believe Star Trek 2009 also benefited from.

    The plot was not that linear. It was no Matrix but it wasn’t simple. And since when does a good movie need a super complex plot? Heck, one of Plinkett’s chief criticisms of The Phantom Menace was that it lacked the more simple, coherent story of the original Star Wars series. Yet they turn around and bash this movie for not having a complicated enough plot? And it seems they didn’t even half understand the plot. Rich’s first sentence describing the plot: “Terrorist blows up building, as an excuse to assassinate a bunch of Starfleet officers..” Actually, no. He blew up the building because he knew that all high profile star fleet officers would assemble for an emergency meeting in a specific room, and he could kill them all at once. It irks me when people critique a film’s plot without even bothering to understand it.

    And if they are going to discuss a lack of “moral dilemmas” in this movie, why not at least mention some of the moral dilemmas in the movie? Firing missiles at a world without permission or provocation. Assassinating a fugitive without trial. Aligning with an enemy. Being unsure whether Khan might have been justified in his actions. They dismiss this movie as lacking any moral depth while not even analyzing the moral issues that it does present.

    Half the “plot holes” that they describe have perfectly good explanations if they actually listened to the dialogue and thought about it a little bit. For example Khan’s blood was explained to have “regenerative powers.” It being human blood has nothing to do with it having “regenerative powers” on whatever creature into which it is injected. It’s almost like they’re LOOKING for reasons to hate on this movie.

    The cold fusion thing. Sure, it’s stupid. Did it make or break the movie? Nope.

    The fact that they spend a half hour bashing this movie yet seemed to love the utterly action-centered “Cowboys vs. Aliens” makes me wonder where exactly they are coming from. Again, I respect their opinion. But this was mine.

    • snqrls

      I was thinking the same, or at least I can’t agree with their stance on this movie.

      Also, I’d like to add Khan’s plan was obviously impromptu so it too is excusable. The specifics allude me for the moment, but I don’t remember him sequestering his people into pods either. Instead, I thought it was implied that it was the admiral, and eitherway, this movie is a lot more intelligent than they give it credit for; so many things were never outright stated, which is very unusual for a blockbuster (i.e. admiral’s allegiances, khan’s plan and origin, scotty’s discussion with kirk across the galaxy, and so on).

      • Guest

        Eh, to clarify, by khan’s origin I only mean they didn’t address in particular why how he was awoken, what training he underwent, and the particulars of his deal with the admiral. And the klingons: not once did anyone address why they were there, but instead of detracting from the experience, i thought it was interesting how the main characters didn’t have to know everything about everyone to ultimately succeed (very realistic).

        • Haitchpeasauce

          Star Trek is set around the 2260′s (i.e., 300 years into the future of the original TV series).

          Khan said that he and his crew were in cryo-stasis for 300 years before being picked up by Marcus.

          So some time in the 1950′s/60′s, mankind had the technology to genetically create Khan and his crew, with the intellect and knowledge for warp technology and advanced weaponry, and then were able to capture them, cryonically freeze them, then cast them adrift in space when things went wrong?

          LINDELOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFFF!

          • tim89

            Actually that back story is from the original Wrath of Khan film, so don’t blame Lindelof.

          • PegasusFantasy

            they never invented super advanced technology in Space Seed , nor they were captured and exiled.

            They escaped Earth aboard the SS Botany Bay,

            Also, Khan never committed Genocide according to Space Seed.

          • jic1

            What exactly forced Lindelof to use elements of the backstory that no longer made any sense? In fact, didn’t he produce a movie a few years ago that intentionally and explicitly broke continuity with the earlier *Star Trek* series and movies?

          • tim89

            Khan’s origins would have occurred before the break in continuity. So as long as Khan was in the film, Lindelof could not change his origins without blatantly contradicting the original films.

          • PegasusFantasy

            BUT HE DOES.

            he makes khan super space hitler hell-bent in exterminating all anyone inferior.

            oh, also, british. and magic blood.

          • tim89

            Khan is described in the originals as successfully conquering much of Earth until he was removed from power. STID extrapolates that he committed genocide in the process. Not necessarily a contradiction.

          • PegasusFantasy

            directly contradicted by Kirk’s, McCoy’s and Scott’s dialogue in Space Seed.

            “there were no massacres under his rule, the best of the tyrants, no war if not directly attacked” = genocidal madman???

    • Hamster

      I respect your right be wrong about everything you just said…

      If you’re going to be a patronizing ass, just be one, don’t dance around it.

      Also, being not as bad as something else, does diminish how bad this movie was on its own.

      • Hurler

        “your right be wrong”. Seriously, the guy has some good points and none of it sounded assy. You, on the other hand…

    • chris moll

      Even though the term “cold fusion” was used incorrectly, it was still fine. way better than red mater in the last one, and besides the whole point of the opening scene was to have a fun action sequence and also introduce a recurring theme into the big plot of the movie. Kind of like how the indiana jones filmes had a sequence that had nothing to do with the main plot of the movie. And yes, even though the cold fusion was used wrong (unlike the heisenberg compensators in TNG) don’t nitpick it too much. the last time i heard that term in a film was in the matrix(1997). They used people as batteries along with a form of cold fusion for energy. Even in the 2009 film they said a star would threaten the whole galaxy. They could have at least used a Quasar instead to make a little more sense.

      • Bill T

        That brings up a good point. Abrams Trek 1, pointless stupid plot device = red; Abrams Trek 2, pointless stupid plot device = ice blue. Taking bets now on green or yellow for Abrams Trek 3.

    • Dean

      Nice points

  • John

    I thought ST: ID had a strong theme when it discusses the idea of morality and leadership.

    Marcus, convinced that war is inevitable after Vulcan was wiped out of existence, uses Khan to create weapons and instigate an intergalactic war, as a way of “preserving utopia”. This is a common megalomaniacal practice found in certain governments and/or military. A sort of riff on Colonel Jessup’s “men on the wall” philosophy in “A Few Good Men”.

    Then you have Khan, a man genetically engineered to be superior and always in control, but is oppressed and controlled by Marcus, with the threat looming of his crew and family being killed. Khan’s acts of terrorism being more of an act of desperation than the acts of a purely psychotic madman.

    Then there’s Kirk, who is close to acting like BOTH of these men whilst attempting to hunt Khan down and enact some vengeance. Kirk learns from Pike, Spock and his crew about what it is to be a leader of men, and an upholder of morals and ethics even in the face of death and fear.

    I think this film is far deeper than you guys are giving it credit for, and the fart jokes and barely intelligible explanation as to what the film’s plot is (by dismissing the actual occurrences in the family and constantly saying “stuff happens and things explode”) makes this review feel more shallow and childish than you claim the movie is.

    I’m pretty shocked by this, because the past reviews have even given movies like The Phantom Menace a proper overview instead of instantly trying to just insert ridiculous jokes.

    Don’t waste your viewers time with 45 minutes of empt fart jokes, be real reviewers.

    • snqrls end

      Eh, khan and the admiral could have been in coherts up until khan realized he had been betrayed at kronos. That’d make more sense, I think.

      Otherwise I agree with the sentiment

    • decora

      i like your points, however, alot of that stuff you are talking about is described in dialogue in the film, instead of actually being part of the movie.

      if the film was about what Weller did to Khan then we would see that happening. Even in a flashback. Even fucking Iron Sky (spoiler) actually spends a few moments on the devastatioof war on ordinary people.

      Do we ever actually meet any of Khan’s people? No. Do we have any idea what he is really talking about? No. Do we ever even see Khan on screen as anything other than a mad bomber/puncher? No.

      Kirk learns what from Pike? Pike dies in the first few minutes of the film. Breaking continuity with the show where he winds up in a wheelchair.

      Kirk decides to bring a special forces team to capture Osama Bin Cabbagepatch instead of using a drone strike against him… why? Spock says something like its against the law. Why is it against the law? It aint against the law in the USA in 2013, why is it against the law in the future?

      …. and then his special forces team winds up murdering dozens of klingons after tresspassing into their space.

      Do we ever see the klingon reaction? No, they are just bodies and corpses to pile up to show the audience how badass Osama is.

      Now the whole point of the capture is to put CabbagePatch on trial. Do we see the trial? No. We see nothing of it.

      Star Trek Old wouldn’t have any problem with a court scene. But Star Trek Hero would never have such a ‘slow’ set piece with people sitting around arguing for several minutes of screen time.

      • jic1

        “Pike dies in the first few minutes of the film. Breaking continuity with the show where he winds up in a wheelchair.”

        Half the point of the first movie *was* breaking continuity with the show.

        “Why is it against the law? It aint against the law in the USA in 2013, why is it against the law in the future?”

        Because laws change over hundreds of years?

        • BYODB

          Because they followed every other law they establish in the series.

          Oh wait, wasn’t the first part of the movie them breaking their most cherished law?

          Oh…

    • Dean

      Well said

  • fuck

    Eh. Another review that I don’t see myself ever agreeing with on the whole.
    Sometimes, I feel like Mike and Jay (and Rich) were a little distant from the film. I thought the story was not lacking in the holes they referred to. The film lays everything out pretty consistently, and everything is basically accounted for.
    That being said
    i am immensely bothered by the cold fusion and tribble with human blood elements in the film and I’m upset that you guys pointed that out
    now i have to go watch baby’s day out to make myself feel better

  • Cole

    The worst part of these new Star Trek movies is the “god-level” technology they carelessly let loose into the world. In the first one Scotty comes up with a technology to beam anyone anywhere. That technology makes every action by every character in the second movie superfluous. And in the second one they use Khan’s genetically engineered blood to resuscitate a dead Kirk. So now they can travel through space and regenerate. Might as well give Kirk a goofy scarf and let him travel around in a blue police box. These technologies make every action going forward pointless. Take the second film for example. Instead of sabotaging the Enterprise to break down why not sabotage it to blow up? Then beam the wreckage and bodies to Klingon space? If Khan is a problem beam him to the center of a star. And now going forward anytime anyone dies you can reverse death. Death becomes trivial. The writers let these powerful technologies out of the box. You can’t put them back in. It’s also makes it difficult for a talented writer to build drama. And the Star Trek writers aren’t talented.

    • Yukons

      Deus ex machina piling up like credit card debt. Pretty soon, you have to move back in with your parents.

    • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

      “If Khan is a problem beam him to the center of a star.”

      Haha! My sides! That is awesome.

      “I am better than you.”
      “At what?”
      “Everything.”
      “That’s nice.” *Beams him to the centre of a star.*

    • Fuck you Abrams

      Exactly. Scottie has the equation to beam anyone ANYWHERE, and he later complains the the Federation “stole” it from him, and that’s why Khan had a device that let him transport from Earth directly to Klingon.

      So…….why the fuck do they need to send a small team with a little ship down there to catch Khan? TELEPORT THEM DIRECTLY THERE USING SCOTTIE’S FORMULA. Oh, you can’t? Why not? Khan had a device that did it. Activate the device again!

      It’s this bullshit that tears the movie apart. A device, a weapon, anything that’s convenient to the plot at this very moment is completely forgotten by the next scene, despite the massive ramifications it would cause.

      After the end of this movie, everyone in the galaxy should be immortal. Khan’s blood can be injected into any corpse and bring them back to life. Surely this will be reflected in the next movie, right JJ Abrams?

    • Alex Lee

      I thought that Scotty said the technology was dangerous in ’09 because of what it did with the Admiral’s prized beagle. That being said, the transwarp beaming device is actually a far more powerful weapon than the U.S.S. Vengeance because they could just beam bombs to planets in different star systems. Or form an Iconian empire by being able to beam troops to any place they needed. At any rate, it’s cheaper, faster, and the losses incurred by using this technology are disposable, whereas losing a dreadnaught is a significant loss of resources militarily.

      Unless the HITB people are right, and it only affects those who died of radiation poisoning, I have to agree that death is trivial at this point.

    • Jason

      Funny you say “god-like”, because I do think Khan was meant to be some sort of Christ figure in this movie. Not just the blood symbolism, which is obvious, but also the number 72, which is big in a lot of religions (just Wikipedia “72″ and they’ll give you a whole list of religious references to it, it’s quite long). But honestly, I think Hollywood producers just like putting that stuff in there to mess with all the illuminati/conspiracy kids.

  • Fart Noise

    This movie is actually realistic, if you’re a Scientologist. Let me break it down for you, because we actually witnessed the birth of Scientology itself in this movie:

    As everyone knows, the merciless galactic leader Xenu, dropped a bunch of nuclear devices inside volcanos and killing all the thetans. Nuclear device? Cold fusion device? I mean, come on.. it’s obvious that Xenu is really Spock and the natives on that planet are future Scientologists! IT IS ALL RIGHT THERE!!!!

    And let’s NOT forget the fact that thetans are the frozen souls of all of those who were killed by the nuclear-exploded volcano. Gee, that sounds JUST LIKE Kahn’s crew!

    There really is no other way to interpret it. Scientology is truth, and JJ Abrams just unloaded a bunch of information that humanity is not ready for. That’s why it’s the most closely guarded secret held by Scientologists. I predict that Abrams is going to get whacked for spilling the beans..

    Even I’VE said to much, and… hang on a second, there’s someone at my door..

    • Haitchpeasauce

      This is most entertaining thing I’ve read all day. Bravo.

      Hope the people at the door didn’t have black bags and a van with them.

    • decora

      thats so accurate it’s frightening. j.j. abrams is actually an ex-scientologist according to the internets. its really, really bizarre to have those elements in the film.

  • Trekky

    OMG !! Totally re-written ,Flipped version of ” The Wrath Of Khan ”
    So Not Trekky !! Very disappointed with this one !!!!

  • Fart Noise

    Hey guys, forget everything I just said about Scientology. I was totally lying my ass off right there.

    Okay is that enough? You guys can put that e-meter away now.

    • Bob JaBopistan

      Fuck off. We know you are the feds.

      What did you do with Fart Noise you bastard?!

  • Raphael Goettenauer

    If someone makes a film about a Tyrannosaurus that get lost in tokyo and put the name “Godzilla” on it… That doesnt make it Godzilla… its just a lost dinosaur movie…

    • Hamster

      Especially if it stars Matthew Broderick.

      • Raphael Goettenauer

        Especially

    • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

      Lost Dinosaur: The Movie… IN 3D!!!!!!!!

  • jnorris441

    Who the fuck wants to eat Taco Pizza from a General Store? Fuck you BLIP

  • Sean Wetmore

    If you actually watch the movie, and then right after watch this review, it’s a seriously carthitic HitB.

    • Bill T

      The movie is the radiation that will kill your soul, and this review is the Khan’s blood that will bring it back to life. It’s like poetry, they rhyme.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

    Is there a reason so many people write his name as ‘Kahn’ instead of the correct spelling, ‘Khan’? It seems Kahn is a German surname, but aside from that I’m not sure why there’s a mix-up. Perhaps I’m being too anal.

    • SeniorBung

      They’re dyslexic, you fuck.

      Why don’t you go beat up a retarded kid now? And not one of the ones that have super-strength, either. One of the normal retarded kids.

      • whip

        People voted this crap up? Really?

        There is zero evidence that the people he spoke of were dyslexic, nor was Mr. Nash actually remotely rude or patronizing or insulting about the mis-spellings. He just asked a question.

        What a sad world where such hateful, vitriolic rhetoric routinely passes for “wit” and get’s high fives from other simpletons. Sad times indeed.

        • Some neurotypical guy

          That is what we neurotypicals call sarcasm.

        • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

          Thanks for sticking up for me, but I believe that SeniorBung is just using beating up ‘retarded’ people for shock value because obviously no sane or normal person would do such a terrible thing.

          I was trying to carefully avoid flat out calling people dumb with the misspelling and assumed it had something to do with seeing that German surname before.

      • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

        It’s funny that you mention that because it’s one of my favourite pastimes to relieve stress and bring joy back into my harrowing existence that is life.

        • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

          Also, them retards had it coming by choosing to be dumb.

  • Robby

    They made it 40 minutes of plot hole review and analysis without mentioning Damen Linfelof.

    Fun Fact: Damen Lindelof was born in Teaneck, New Jersey.

    Seriously, what are the odds?

  • Scott Baio

    Hey guys. Charles In Charge is now streaming on Netflix.

  • decora

    It says Red Letter Media. Here’s my money!

  • Scott Baio

    Be honest with yourselves: Is this not the best theme song you’ve ever heard in your life? Amazing saxophone solo.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oI_Bu4mYBs

    Charles In Charge, streaming now on Netflix! Let’s pump up those residual cheques!

  • p_ter

    it’s one of the first times bones actually does something medically successful

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0yXqU-w9U0

  • Fisted

    This review was sloppier than Jay’s vagina.

  • Tyler L. Young

    They liked ‘Iron Man 3′, but they didn’t like ‘Into Darkness’………..

    Uh-huh.

    • whip

      You guys are just nuts. I don’t see how you can possibly forgive this horrible movie so easily. It couldn’t be more clear that some of you simply want to like it. You went in wanting to like it. You saw it wanting to like it. You walked out wanting to like it.

      And damn if you will accept anything that gets remotely in the way of that.

      This movie couldn’t be more broken. Jay describes it perfectly, as a magic trick of staged set pieces and fan service, connected together in a “connect the dots” manner.

      It couldn’t be more pandering and nonsensical.

      Yet people just insist on wanting to love it.

      You are being exactly the kind of mindless tool that the filmmakers want you to be. They are pandering to you completely, and fan service wanking in your face, and you glowingly accept it and love it.

      Why? Is denial really this strong?

      • whip

        Yup, I guess denial is that strong for at least one person. Oh well. I can’t waste any more time at it. You guys will believe what you want.

        Just.. I feel sorry for you. You are useful idiots who are being pandered too shamelessly, and you just can’t see it. This entire movie was just one big fan service wank off and nonsense in every other way.

        Sad.

        • Hurler

          Lol. So if somebody likes it they are simply in denial? I highly doubt that. I have picked apart every plot hole of this movie and thought about it a lot, but I still liked it. It’s a pretty impressive theatrical event, all things considered. I think you simply walked into the movie hating it, hated watching it, and hated it after it was over. You’re just in denial….pffft. I give them props for making a solid action flick…and that is all.

          • Bill T

            I went into this movie with low expectations and was disappointed. Maybe because the first 1/3 of it gave me a false sense of hope. It actually wasn’t bad for a while, until it got stupid, then stupider, and finally stupiderer. I’ll give it this accolade though – hands down the funniest “Star Trek” movie EVER. I’ve never laughed so much during an “emotional” death scene.

      • Tyler L. Young

        I never said I loved it–but it was entertaining. The plot had dumb stuff, but you guys are making it out to be Prometheus or a Star Wars prequel. It was at least much better than IM3.

        • Jay Stein

          I loved it, and the plot had “dumb stuff”. It’s science fiction/fantasy. Make-believe comes to mind..

  • Nmaster

    In the end the good guys won by punching the bad guy into submission

    - i’m surprised they didnt just string khan up & drain him of all his magic blood, but that wud have been too allegorical to the current iraq war…

  • Margo Unshaved

    I like how Lindelof and Abrams expect us to believe that alien plant-life has RED chlorophyl. Chlorophyl is GREEN, fuckers. Alien plants with red chlorophyl? Man, that’s just WEIRD.

    Fuck you, Abrams! I’m not suspending my disbelief for that shit!

    • ninjamedic210@gmail.com

      Sigh. Chlorophyll is green because that is the color of light it reflects. It absorbs the wavelengths of light that are most usefull for making food. It reflects the rest( mostly green) light that we see. On other worlds this may be changed by a variety of factors( the wavelengths of light given off by the native star. The light getting through the alien atmosphere. The composition of the alien atmosphere. The evolution of the plant life). So, it could happen.

      • Margo Unshaved

        Get out of here, Lindelof.

        • decora

          go to any greenhouse, you will find a few plants with red leaves.

          • whip

            So that means that entire planets can be red fauna then! brilliant!

            This is like the stupid engineer in Prometheus drinking the black goo, which had that awesome little CGI sequence of his DNA breaking down.. And we are obviously supposed to infer that this turned his DNA into magic life dust for seeding planets.

            When all it really did was break his DNA down to base components and amino acids, which already would have existed on primordial earth.

            When there was no logical or sound reason to assume it would all just magically re-assemble itself into 99.9% compatible with human beings or whatever they claimed.

            It wouldn’t have done anything. But the idiots who make movies, for idiots, think that such a sequence explains everything, and so damn any real science. IT LOOKS COOL!

            This is all junk science and garbage. I’m not saying movies need to always be 100% accurate. But we’ve reached a stage now where they are completely farcical jokes of misinformation and broken science. A point where it’s a dis-service to people to watch them any longer. It’s counter productive, and helps dumb people down.

          • nick palladino

            Man, you seem like a nitpicky cunt. The idea that a different ecosystem has red fauna pisses you off? What the actual fuck. A gorn is OK and other weird species just fine but red fauna = BULLSHIT!

            Prometheus has nothing to do with this at all….

            And in a later post you say “It couldn’t be more clear that some of you simply want to like it. You went in wanting to like it. You saw it wanting to like it. You walked out wanting to like it.”

            And it couldn’t be any more clear that some of you simply want to hate it. You went in wanting to hate it. You saw it wanting to hate it. You walked out wanting to hate it.

            See I can reverse your ad hominem argument and it’s just as invalid. I don’t understand the anger at people enjoying something you don’t like.

            In response to the video, their review has some good points, but I feel it’s existence as a Star Trek movie got it more scrutiny than similar fare like Iron Man 3. The plotholes never affected my suspension of disbelief too badly so I thought it was a fine action movie.

          • whocares

            And then Spock has green blood… what about that?

      • GinGuilt

        you just got sarcasmed

        • ninjamedic210@gmail.com

          And let my inner nerd show.

    • Crixxxx

      Ever been to Vermont in October? Plenty of pretty red trees. Google burning bush plants, too

      • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

        I think [HOPE] he’s kidding around.

  • Masturbating Right Now

    When in the hell was The Enterprise designed for atmospheric flight? Was that ever actually a thing? Can someone explain it to me?

    Aren’t these ships supposed to completely fall apart if they’re not in space? Or am I completely wrong about that?

    • whip

      Well the biggest reason that they invented teleporters for TOS was to save the cost of showing the ship land every week. Or shuttles. Even having a few preset landing sequences to choose from was more expensive, and obviously reused footage.

      Also, on Voyager, the ship landed on planets at least once or twice.

      I’d say it’s reasonable for them to handle atmospheric flight. But just not preferred or fully safe, when you have better safer options such as teleporters and shuttles.

      I can’t believe I just said teleporters are safer than landing the ship. I’d never get into a Trek teleporter, ever. I know that would be the end of “my” life, and my new clone, despite swearing up and down that it really was me, and continued my memories and consciousness.. I know that “I” really would have just been lights out! Gone. Black screen. The end.

    • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

      Are you masturbating right now?

    • Haitchpeasauce

      The Enterprise might be able to survive atmospheric flight but definitely would not survive reentry. Then the bit where the Enterprise plunges below the clouds only to emerge was terribly undramatic because it was expected to happen.

      • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

        The reason that our current spaceships need heat shielding is because they’re travelling at an insanely fast 8 km/s to maintain an orbit around the Earth. Seeing as how the distance between the Earth and the Enterprise kept changing during that battle [at first they were right beside the moon], it’s hard to tell what speed they had reached due to the acceleration of gravity, but it was only a few minutes of free fall if I remember correctly, then they started being hindered by the atmosphere due to air resistance. If they weren’t travelling at very fast speeds, then it wouldn’t necessarily heat up that much, so it might be able to survive reentry.

        However, I doubt the writers put any thought into that scene and didn’t think of whether it would survive reentry or not. Apparently the Enterprise also works well underwater too…

        • Haitchpeasauce

          I masturbated to this post.

        • BYODB

          You had to know it was coming though, I mean Kirk rode up to the Enterprise on a motorcycle in the first one.

          Apparently Kirks dad dying means that every starship comes equipped with anti-gravity now. I hate to bring up Voyager, but wasn’t that a prototype that could enter an atmosphere? Like a century or something after this movie? I wonder what other massive technological changes have happened in Starfleet because of Kirks dad dying. (Shouldn’t they be worse off, since all the smart Vulcans are dead and all?)

    • Hurler

      Or under water? I didn’t get it either. To me, in the old trek, the large ships were built IN SPACE and STAYED in space. The only time the Enterprise D went into the atmosphere it crashed horribly, and that was just an excuse for a crazy action scene in one of the poor TNG movies.

  • DanceK

    When will we see Half in the Bag: The movie?

    • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

      Will they do a HitB episode of the movie?

  • Time Cop Fan

    Pretty cool Time Cop cameo, guys

    • decora

      space cop. his name is space cop.

      • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

        Haha. His user name ever says ‘Time Cop Fan’. That’s hilarious.

  • coyoterys

    I’m still trying to figure out wtf Rich was drinking. I’ve narrowed it down to pickle juice or an urine sample.

    • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.t.nash Mitchell Taco Nash

      It’s pickle urine.

  • Grotoff

    Quinto does Spock as stern.

    • whip

      I dunno about that. Seems more angry/angsty to me too. Not stern. He seems impatient and holding down his rage all the time. Not remotely like old Spock, who could have Bones spitting vulgar nonsense at him and he’d just sit there, cooly and calmly reacting in a logical manner.

      New Spock even argues back, supposedly in a “logical” manner.. but really he is so clearly fighting down his rage and maintaining his composure. He is belligerent and argumentative. All the time. He’s not remotely cool or aloof. Ever. He always seems like he’s one more problem away from a meltdown.

      • Hurler

        I didn’t get this at all from spock. He really only got angry when he thought Kirk was dead. All the rest of the time he was pretty stiff and vulcany.

  • MarkHB

    Without KHAN-sequence. Geddit? KHAN-sequence! That is hilarious! Ha ha!

    • Haitchpeasauce

      Yeah I noticed that one too, it made me smile.

  • http://www.jamesbarlow.co.uk/ James Barlow

    Khan’s Blood… Goddamnit. Ya canna change the laws of physics, but biology can go f**k itself.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTc1i74p1_c

  • john s

    This movie was Pinkett worthy. Absolutely terrible script.

  • http://www.facebook.com/rosemaryheptig Rosemary Heptig

    I’m just kinda glad Uhura got to use her communication skillz for like, five minutes. I hope they dress her up like a Klingon in the next one and have her infiltrate their High Command – or whatever the Klingon muckety-mucks are called.

    • Haitchpeasauce

      The same communication skills she displayed in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country … I suppose she had forgotten her Klingon by that stage!

      • http://www.facebook.com/rosemaryheptig Rosemary Heptig

        It’s ST6: The Unwatched Movie to me… Yeesh, why am I not surprised that her scene was a direct reference to something seen previously in the franchise? The whole dad-gummed movie was nothing but cut and paste! Honestly, the only thing that surprised me was when someone pointed out to me that they had even managed to cram in some DS9 with the Section 31 bit.

        • Random