Star Trek Into Darkness Review: Thoughts From a Star Trek Virgin

by at .  Updated at .

I am not a Star Trek fan. I know as much about Star Trek as you learn by just being a human on Earth.

Tags: , ,

From Around the Web

    More From The Hollywood Gossip


    Big Lebowski Sequel: Actually Happening?!

    A sequel to the beloved film The Big Lebowski may be a possibility. Actor John Turturro teased a follow-up in a recent interview.

    Rosamund Pike, Gone Girl Star, Covers W Magazine, Talks Playing Amy Dunne

    Rosamund Pike, Gone Girl star, was featured on the cover of W Magazine. Inside she opened up about playing Amy Dunne and what it was like to land the role.

    Magic Mike Sequel Gets Title, Release Date; Ladies Channing All Over Their Tatum!

    There's a Magic Mike sequel in the works! Get your girlfriends and get ready for more shirtless Channing Tatum!

    Maps to the Stars Trailer: Love is Stronger Than Death

    Maps to the Stars opens later this year. Check out the first trailer now.

    8 Comments New Comment Subscribe


    It doesn't seem very realistic for star light streaks to be jetting out behind the ship, as exhaust, when it goes into warp drive while the viewer (audience) is stationary. At that angle, star light streaks shouldn't be seen at all. They should have placed the viewer as a fly riding the ship as it goes into warp drive and let the star light streaks fill the screen. That would have be more realistic as well as impressive experience for the audience.


    I'm surprised you don't find an issue with warp drive considering how unrealistic it is. How do they steer around asteroids and other space junk? Why aren't they flung to the back of the ship during that sudden acceleration? How do they overcome speed of light limitation?

    How could you like Iron Man then? A transformer like robotic suite with an unrealistic battery system (what battery could be THAT energy dense?) And he flies around totally ignoring the laws of physics (come on, HAND thrusters? Get real). Suite parts that just magically "float" to were RDJ's hand is?

    But back to Star Trek... I actually agree that it was kind of boring... seems like much of the plot points were glossed over. The Klingons were the most interesting part to me and they were there for like 2 seconds. I think the movie should have been extended to 3 hours to expand upon all the interesting aspects of the plot that were rushed by.

    I'm not against action but when done well it doesn't bore me... here it felt mostly like filler in a movie that had no focus.


    You bring up some valid scientific issues. However, all of your questions are pretty standard stuff in most science fictions movies. I am curious why these issues would stand out to you now?

    Q: Can objects in space go from still to “barreling towards Earth?” There seems to be some lack-of-gravity in the way.
    A: There is no current technology or science that could accelerate like that, but warp speeds have been theorized. You would bend space, instead of simply traveling fast. This could potentially give you speeds beyond light and wouldn’t have to accelerate as fast as it appears.

    Q: a space ship jostles around, can its crew really start falling through the hallways? Surely any kind of simulated gravity would be pulling the crew down toward the floor and not in some cardinal direction (considering they're in space and there are no directions).
    A: The movie had the gravity of the ship and the earth switching back and forth. However, if someone could make artificial gravity, couldn’t it be imagined that the gravity could pull in any direction. Thus if it malfunctioned, you might get pulled in lots of directions.

    Q: How about, if a hole is blown into the wall of anything in space? Can you just hold your breath, hold onto something, and survive? Or would your insides explode out of your ears?
    A: Yes, you can. Not for long, but for a short period. In some cases no permanent damage. In the movie, they never actually experienced a vacuum. There was always air in the room.

    Q: It seems pointless to set a film in space if you take advantage of the cool zero-G aspects of space exactly none times.
    A: What about the scene with Kirk and Kahn flying through the space junk? That couldn’t have been done with gravity.


    I think your critique is valid. However, as you admit is from the point of view from someone who is not already a fan of franchise or even seen the previous movies or TV series.
    Although, I am no Trekkie, I grew up with the original TV series and movies. I think the movie was wonderful, not for the explosions or fight scenes (which you didn’t care for anyway), but for the interaction between the characters. You have to remember, fans know these characters and what they were once like before the timeline was changed. To see Spock throw Kirk under the bus, or be the one to shout “Kahhhhhhhhhhhn!!!” instead of Kirk, means something to us. Yes, they are inside jokes, but there have been so many movies and TV series based on this franchise. I was pleased to see something different. The Enterprise has been seeking out new life and new civilizations for a long time. It was never about the special effects. It was always about the characters and I think Abrams did a good job doing something different for a change.

    P.S. Another inside joke: Carol Marcus the blonde scientist who joined the crew, is the mother of Kirk’s son from the original Star Trek timeline.


    Perhaps you do have to be a fan to understand this film. I can't say seeing as how I'm a fan and can't possibly see it in the eyes of non Trek Fan. Yet I can see a completely bogus one sided point of view review from a critic that should perhaps find another career.
    From a fan point of view there was indeed a few things I personally would have done different, but not much. I walked away knowing my money was well spent.
    As for the lens flares, give it a rest already. The only reason you notice them so much is because you are looking for them. I wasn't and didn't even notice. Seriously, not once did I go " OmG the flares THE FLARES!!!" No, this was not the case.
    The movie flowed very well and the 3D was spectacular.
    If it is your desire to see real life then visit your nearest Walmart, if not then leave your preconceptions at the door and watch this wonderful film.


    Very well put Jessica. What I would like to add is this. Your misunderstanding of the effects of gravitational pull put aside, why not review it on the merits of the performances and the spectacle that Abrahms created? Did I feel it was the best Trek? No, but it was damn good


    You're obviously NOT a scientist. If you had paid attention, you'd have heard that the artificial gravity that would keep the crew "pulled towards the floor" was malfunctioning because of damage to the ship and as you say in your next criticism, THEY WERE BEING PULLED BY EARTH'S GRAVITY! So they were consistently falling in one direction and the ship was moving around them. People who don't want to think shouldn't watch Star Trek.

    Also, if you had listened, the thrusters that would've controlled the ship's movement and kept it from being caught in the earth's gravity were also damaged in the attack, which is why the ship was "suddenly" pulled into the earth's gravity. It didn't go straight from being "still" to barreling toward earth - it's like anything perched on the edge, barely moving until it tips over the edge and starts to fall. People who don't want to think shouldn't watch Star Trek.

    And about the hole? YEP. Didn't you LISTEN to the dialogue?? The guy who opened the space door was scared to death of being frozen and without air, but the door only had to be open for moments and no, your brain doesn't just instantly explode in space. What awful earth/space teacher in middle school told you that?? Scientists have done manual labor for up to 30 seconds in an open space environment without passing out ( and one even was exposed for 4 minutes and still lived. That's why they didn't open the door till the last possible moment, to limit the time the one guy was exposed.

    And I'm sorry, this is a MOVIE. Prince Charming doesn't always find the girl with the slipper either, believe it or not. Movies are based on possibilities, not likelihoods. There's an entire book called "The Physics of Star Trek". I haven't read it, but I dont' go criticizing things haphazardly either.

    Yes, there are a lot of jokes that are more significant if you know the original series Star Trek. I've never seen an episode in my life, personally. But like me, YOU seemed to have seen the movie the first night it was out, which means you were surrounded by hard core fans who were laughing at things that made ME think "uhhh that must be an inside joke". BUT if you just listen to the dialogue (which we've already established you didn't) there's nothing strange about it, it flows naturally and yes, perhaps you miss the inside joke, but you actually dont "miss" it. The dialogue doesn't sound like you shouldnt understand it, you just heard everyone reacting to things and didn't know why (like i did).

    People who don't want to think - or pay attention - should not watch star trek.


    "Virgin Atlantic"..............THE airline.

    You are posting as a guest. To post as a user, please Sign In or Register