Originally Posted by Jory

This is why I consider Into Darkness a much better Star Trek film than the 2009 movie. That one had Kirk acting totally out of character at the end. Nero's ship was disabled and he was completely harmless. Kirk offered assistance, and Nero said he'd rather die than accept help from Kirk. Kirk's response? "You got it," and then he tells his crew to blow the fuck out of Nero's ship, killing him in cold blood, and nobody ever questions the order. Into Darkness feels like a correction of that mistake. The 2009 movie doesn't really get what Trek is all about, but Into Darkness does.

Originally Posted by Jory

Eight-month bump. Not too bad. I've done worse. I'm not going to bother with spoiler tags, since I assume that anyone reading this has seen both The Wrath of Khan and Into Darkness. If not, this is the warning not to read anything below. Anyway, I'll tell you why the callbacks to The Wrath of Khan didn't bother me in Into Darkness. Unlike Nemesis, which stole the plot of The Wrath of Khan but did nothing new with it, Into Darkness is presenting the flip-side to the story. In The Wrath of Khan, Khan was the one who wanted revenge on Kirk (for marooning him on a deserted planet), but in Into Darkness it's Kirk who wants revenge on Khan (for killing Pike). In The Wrath of Khan, Khan gives in to his desire for revenge and it gets him and the rest of his crew killed. In Into Darkness, Kirk is talked out of his assassination mission by his crew. He comes to his senses and later states that Starfleet does not execute without a trial because that's not their way. Into Darkness isn't just recycling the same plot because the writers can't think of anything new (Nemesis), they're doing a complete reversal, putting the hero in the villain's old situation and showing how and why he does things differently. This is why I consider Into Darkness a much better Star Trek film than the 2009 movie. That one had Kirk acting totally out of character at the end. Nero's ship was disabled and he was completely harmless. Kirk offered assistance, and Nero said he'd rather die than accept help from Kirk. Kirk's response? "You got it," and then he tells his crew to blow the fuck out of Nero's ship, killing him in cold blood, and nobody ever questions the order. Into Darkness feels like a correction of that mistake. The 2009 movie doesn't really get what Trek is all about, but Into Darkness does. Not that Into Darkness is perfect. It's filled with all sorts of little stupidities, exactly the kind of idiotic crap I expect from screenwriters like Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman. If I complained about all of those little nitpicks, the result would be five times longer than this post. But overall, focusing more on themes and characterization than plot implausibilities, I thought it worked splendidly. After all the rabble dies down, I think time will vindicate Into Darkness as one of the better films in the series, even though critics at the time

made the mistake of dismissing it as inferior to its predecessor.