Star Trek vs. Star Trek Into Darkness



Very tough!! I've just seen Into Darkness and I freakin' loved it, so I'm going to say that for now, but who knows, my opinion may change over time.

I loved Into Darkness it was a total thrill ride, but at the moment I think the first film has a very slight edge for me. I will put it down to the fact that like Alice Eve that much in the sequel. But I loved everything else.

*I didn't like Alice Eve very much

Poppycock. We'd all fuck Alice Eve.

I can definitely see how somebody wouldn't like Alice Eve in Star Trek Into Darkness, since she doesn't exactly give a stellar performance. But she is blonde and she fills out a Starfleet uniform like a champ, so I must give her participation in the film my full endorsement. As for the film itself, I freakin' loved Star Trek Into Darkness. It is far more action-packed than its predecessor, yet its story isn't quite as clever. For that, I give a slight edge (for now) to 2009's Star Trek in this matchup. The sequel delivered in spades, though.

Totally agree with Caesar! I just saw Into Darkness and it was amazing! I was on the edge of my seat the most, during the 2nd to 3rd act, but the film as a whole was great. Some key factors beat out the 2009 version, like villain. Cumberbatch was great as John Harrison, and Bana was so dull! The action left me breathless in Into Darkness. But the 2009 version beats it out barely.

I love the 2009 movie, and really liked Into Darkness. I think there were many many things right with it but found Alice Eve's character to bug me constantly b/c of the plot device nature of her character right from the start. She's the weakest part of the script. I also felt the 3rd act bogged down with the double climax (one the ship battle, the other the Earth battle). That being said, I still came out of it enjoying it thoroughly and feeling it warrants another viewing. Perhaps in IMAX -- it may warrant an hour drive to see it this way.

I'll take Into Darkness in a close one. It just felt more like a Star Trek movie, even if it wasn't quite as original as the first. I really love both of these, but Into Darkness was just a little more excellent!

I basically liked both of these movies exactly the same. If I had to choose one, I would choose the original, but only because it's lighter in tone, making it a more humorous and breezily fun viewing.

Into Darkness, solely on the basis of Cumberbatch being a far, far better villain than Bana. He's my new voice crush.

Just saw Into Darkness and it was amazing just like the first one, in fact I think I liked it a little more than the first one which is something I didn't expect.

Into Darkness has to be considered a disappointment. The first film is far better. There was more real emotion in the first five minutes of the first film then all of the sequel. Into Darkness features plot flaws EVERYWHERE with no real story. Wall to wall action but little heart.

I gotta go with the 1st one; Much better realized story then the 2nd despite the action being better in the sequel...John Harrison is easily the best character either movie has produced though


They're both equal in my eyes. But I have to make a choice. I choose Into Darkness, at least for now.

I fucking loved the first one, but Bana's villain was weak and so was his motivation. So the slight edge goes to Into darkness.

Star Trek (2009) remains the only Star Trek movie I like.

I haven't seen the first Star Trek in ages, much to my dismay since I wanted to watch it again before watching Into Darkness. That said, I felt that while Cumberbatch is a joy to watch and easily the best thing about ID, the first Trek film was stronger conceptually and scripting-wise. So the original wins.

I would give the slight edge to Star Trek because the plot was more original and the action had a greater impact because it was more intense because they built up to it. The 2nd was amazing with non stop action and a better villain but it borrowed too much from other Star Trek films so it felt like lazy screenwriting.

I was really hard on Trek '09 after seeing it in the theater, but it holds up much better on repeated viewings. Maybe I'll be able to say the same thing about Into Darkness. As of right now, I have to say that I could write a book on everything that is wrong with Into Darkness. Yet, I enjoyed it anyway. If that makes any sense. Everything about STID that is supposed to be an "homage" is just there because J.J. and his crew wanted to remake The Wrath of Khan. Star Trek Into Ripoff-ness. And yet, the big "reveal" is nothing. I'm still shocked that the biggest rumor actually turned out to be true. But Khan's origin in this movie is just glossed over, to the point where it almost makes no sense unless you've seen "Space Seed" and Star Trek II. Cumberbatch has performance (it's a great performance), but the character of Khan has no real presence. (And why is this character now British, anyway?) Star Trek '09 set things up brilliantly so that the filmmakers could tell more original stories, without being bound by Trek canon. With the promise at the end of Into Darkness of getting out there to explore, I hope they can do it next time. Into Darkness is an enjoyable film, but it misses the mark it should have hit.

Main Characthers: Star Trek Supporting Cast: Star Trek: Into Darkness Villians:Star Trek: Into Darkness Imagery:Star Trek Story:Star Trek: Into Darkness Star Trek Into Darkness for me, but I really loved the first one.

Henderson, slow down! You're putting me into colon overdose! As for the matchup, uh... I'll say Into Darkness. It's got Benedict Cumberpatch, and more Simon Pegg than the first. It also utilizes Checkov more, something that they didn't really bother doing in the first film. Yes, it does have it's dumb moments. Why do tribbles have human blood? Why is Kahn's plan so convoluted? Why does Spock call up old Spock for no reason whatsoever, to get knowledge that helps him in no way whatsoever? Who gives a shit? Film is an emotional experience, not a logical one. Film is art, not... Tax receipts. And as an emotional experience, both these films are great.

both are good over all into darkness is better.mainly because of the superior action and villein.


They are both equal, in my opinion. I have the first ranked just above Into Darkness.

I believe that the 2009 Star Trek is awfully overrated. It's not a bad movie, it's just that the plot -- with all of its time travelling nonsense -- is so terribly confusing, that it completely ruins much of the film. It keeps the villain from being as threatening as he needs to be and it takes up more screen-time than it should. Into Darkness -- though still flawed --is definitely an improvement over the original, featuring a more coherent story, a superior villain and a slightly better script. The second one definitely wins.

Damn.... Star Trek is not fresh in my memory, whereas Into Darkness is, so that takes the win for now. A rewatch of the first Star Trek may change my mind though.

Into Darkness was a mindless rehash and a HUGE let down. It's not even close.

Star Trek is better.. Into Darkness have cool moments but the story get a little messy and disappoiting by the end, but i still like it too

Eh, I liked both, but I didn't love them. They're fun sci-fi action films, but they're so over-the-top flashy, lense flare-y and fan-service-y which kind of annoys me. They're entertaining and incredibly well made, but I don't really have a desire to watch them again. And I'm simply not a Star Trek guy, which may also have something to do with it. Into Darkness trades in a good script for a much better villain. I can't even remember the villain from the first film, other than his face, I guess. Cumberbatch is awesome, nuff said. But the script is worse than that of the first film. The plot is just too convoluted (with plenty of plotholes) and the story is even more fan-service-y than the first film. Leonard Nimoy showing up again wasn't the only problem (although his appearance was completely pointless compared to his appearance in the first film). I haven't seen Wrath of Khan (yet), so I can't comment on the "paying tribute / too similar / ripping off / whatever"-debate, but it does come across to me that they ran out of original ideas so they just brought Khan back just to bring Khan back. And was it me, or did this one lacked the fun of the first film? I remember a lot of huge laughs when I saw the first one in the theater, but this one wasn't nearly as funny. I dunno. The sequel also seemed oddly enough smaller in scope, maybe because there were less locations and we spend more time on the ship. But anyway, I prefer the first film. Not by much, but the first film's script is better and I remember it being very funny. Again, I don't love them, but they're quite entertaining.

For me it's a tough decision. I loved both films when I first watched them. Star Trek '09 was the film that got me into the franchise anyway (and I like TOS and its films cause of it). It is, in all fairness, an alternate reality due to the events that happened with Nero and Spock from the Original Series timeline (which is in a distant future) which creates a different perspective on this alternate timeline altogether cause of that. I love how the main characters meet eachother in different scenarios of the film (i.e Kirk and Uhura first meet in a bar, Kirk meets Bones on a shuttle etc etc). Only two letdowns on the film for me was Nero, he was a dull-ish villain in the film and the romance between Spock and Uhura which left me going 'Wtf?!' but I soon got used to it. Into Darkness for me, was more action packed than '09 and like the first film it also had its comic relief (respectively thwon inby Bones and Scotty). I did ignore the rumours of who the villain was going to be (although now true) I guess it came as a shock and surprise cause I weren't expecting it when I went to see the film at the cinema. Benedict Cumberbatch portayed Khan (yes the villain was Khan) greatly, I don't really give two hoots what nationality the villain is unless it is vitally needed. There is the "backstory" of Khan and how Admiral Marcus is involved with it and shows that he is somewhat of an antagonist as well. Although the film doesn't rip off the Wrath of Khan as much (for example the mention of Botany Bay which I am somewhat confused about it, think I need to re-watch the Original Series again, more specifically, the episode Space Seed). Oh and the role reversal with Kirk and Spock, meh. I like how shit gets real when Spock (a Vulcan none the less) gets extremely pissed off. My favourite moments was when Khan smashed the Admiral's head in and when Spock breaks Khan's shoulder, something along the lines of that. the letdowns, Alive Eve as Carol Marcus, I just don't know why. Was she there for Kirk's sex appeal or something? And people's exaggeration of the film, how they feel it is a "rip off" so Khan's the villain, big deal. They ultimately steped up the game, and it was action packed. More action than the first film but I guess '09 needed the explanation of how they came to be in the first place and makes way for more action later on. I love both films equally but if I had to choose, it'd be Into Darkness, but both are number one in my books. This coming from a 15 year old.

Into Darkness. It had what the first lacked, a good antagonist. Benedict Cumberbatch was extremely menacing. That's the difference maker right there.

Into Darkness. It had a better antagonist and explored darker themes. Plus it was more entertaining. These are back to back on my Flickchart.

I enjoyed both, but I feel that the first is the superior one.

Into Darkness all day every day.

The intruders would to go shows off the esade about traveled in the extendered of to go on to the first one shows the details signals stars above what's going on about the second one it's to spooled to destroyed one of entire of earth's suprem of metures what would go on sipples of down

Stop using Google Translate (incorrectly)!

I can now say that I prefer the original.

The first one wins, but Into Darkness does put up a very good fight.

I like the original. It was clever and I liked the alternate future aspect. Both are great though. It's a shame Abrams isn't doing the third.

Darkness is better, but these Jar Jar Abrams films are pretty bad.

I don't know if I should ashamed to say this or not, but Into Darkness is what got me into Star Trek. I actually hadn't seen any of the originals before these two. Upon first viewing, I didn't really like the '09 film (which I've eventually grown to really enjoy). But as I said, Into Darkness is what got me into Star Trek. For that reason, I just have to give Star Trek Into Darkness the win here. Also, Into Darkness has a much better villain.

Into Darkness felt like a more complete story, and had more badass moments imo, like the enterprise crashing and the gravity shifts in the ship.

Star Trek '09 is a better movie, but I love Into Darkness, they're the best Trek movies.

Star Trek '09 is a better movie, but I love Into Darkness, they're the best Trek movies. (In My Opinion.)

The 2009 Star Trek is just a bit more fun, though I feel both are in need of rewatches.

Star Trek wins for being the better overall film. Into Darkness started off great, but then fell flat in the third act due to a weak villain.

I appreciated that INTO DARKNESS was trying to talk about sociopolitical matters, but the story was too caught up in trying to be cleverer than us and it became an unnecessarily convoluted mess. Also, the finale was the stuff of lazy fanfic. The '09 reboot gets the nod.

Star Trek 09 is overrated, but the sequel is disappointing, though not bad. Taking 09 here.

09 but these are two of the top tier Star Trek movies