Where Can You Watch Star Trek Into Darkness

[Olivie Inoue]

Shouldyour Trek appetite remain unsatiated after your movie watchathon, feel free to pull from either our list of the best Star Trek: The Original series episodes or best Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes. Either one will set you up for a weekend jam-packed with great Trek moments. Consult our Star Trek streaming guide for all the details on where to watch the movies and shows online

The last of the Prime Timeline movies failed to impress at the box office, so it was a few years before anyone tried to bring the Enterprise back to the big screen. Rather than lean on any of the TV crews, this new slate of movies would serve as a reboot, welcoming new audiences while honoring long-time fans. Welcome to the Kelvin Timeline. (For all the ins and outs, check out our Star Trek: Kelvin Timeline explained article).

Beyond is a significant point in the timeline for two reasons. First, it sadly marked the death of Spock Prime due to the passing of Leonard Nimoy. Second, it culminates in the Enterprise embarking on the five-year-mission that started everything back in 1966.

Susan Arendt is a freelance writer, editor, and consultant living in Burleson, TX. She's a huge sci-fi TV and movie buff, and will talk your Vulcan ears off about Star Trek. You can find more of her work at Wired, IGN, Polygon, or look for her on Twitter: @SusanArendt. Be prepared to see too many pictures of her dogs.

I just saw into darkness. I agree with your critique. JJ reimagined wrath of Kahn. Why? Does he not of any original ideas? Into Darkness is lazy. Star Trek is so old with so much history and yet JJ reuses and old story rather than create an original story. Very disappointing. On its own, into darkness is cold and dry.

I feel I have something interesting to add about (the lack of) character continuity, but it will have to wait until I have time to write up something about this film, Iron Man 3, Skyfall, and George Takei.

The film was actually made for TV (and that shows in its tiny budget) and was designed as a possible bridge between the old TV show and a launch of a new series. When Paramount saw the quality of the film, they decided on a theatrical release instead.

The one possible hope for the future is that a different writer and director are brought on for the next one, and use this cast to tell an interesting, non-moronic story based around some far-flung planet. You know, Star Trek.

There are two ways to look at Into Darkness, and that is objectively and by comparison. Sure, I can understand frustrations with its relationship with Wrath of Khan (despite a few lines here and there, the presence of Khan, and the reversed scene in the third act directly referencing or mirroring the film).

However, this article is incredibly unfair. Despite being a rant, it picks apart every possible thing within the film without doing the same with Wrath of Khan (remember to balance your criticism by reflecting on the pros and cons of both subjects). It also takes stabs at the plot which, as noted above, often came as a result of the viewer missing key points of information presented throughout the film.

IMHO it comes down to a few different things, but primarily suspension of disbelief. If you achieved that watching STID, then there is enough wiggle room to explain away what others would find to be problematic; and the same with Khan.

Wrath of Khan was not mediocre or bad. The only flaw was that the augments could control a spaceship. Othee than that it had much of the StarTrek philosophy and character development which Into Darkness was lacking.

Did you not hear Scotty say what happened he was oblivious of the attack and the enterprise crew is the best so yeah he did that after drinking in one night because that was his mission I believe your just angered over the amount of money and living up to your absurd delusions of movies just get over it

They only made more money because movie tickets today cost like twice the amount of 1982. More viewers also would be no proof of a better movie. Into Darkness lacks the character and style of the originals.

Not a huge trek fan and I felt there were a few potholes in this newer installment. That being said, your comparison is extremely bias and shows that you had made up your mind on Into Darkness before it even aired.

I for my part was upset with the prequels because of the horrible direction of Lucas, the diarrhea of CGI that made the prequels look like a video game, and the lack of the sense of adventure that made the original trilogy so compelling.

In TWOK there was more to the story than revenge, but the old Khan and the new Khan have one thing in common and they were super intelligent with no life skills. The old Khan could quote Moby Dick but he did not understand the book, the younger Khan relied on his intelligence that meant nothing because he knew nothing about life and people. I do not think either were super intelligent, they just had knowledge and not the intelligence to use it. Old Kirk and young Kirk were full of arrogance and the belief that they were to important to die. Kirk only survives due to luck and mostly his friends. Young Spock arrogant, thinks he knows everything, Old Spock, matured well, learned the lessons in life and is no longer arrogant. The only one that changed. What did I get out of both the films? I can make a lot of memes thanks to the movies.

Your last arguments are, I have to tell you, difficult to understand, though I think you like knowing what happens before it happens? In movies? Maybe? And I should also like that? Please advise on the best, quickest, and cheapest way I may become as real a Trekkie as you. I look forward to our weekly meetings!

In this question the person only wanted to watch the TV series. I want to watch every movie and TV series there is about Star Trek but I don't know where to start. I found this page on Wikipedia which is about a time line. Do I need to watch it in this order? Are the movies and TV series related?

You have to be aware that TNG is how Roddenberry actually intended Star Trek to be like. Well, the part of TNG until he died, after that his vision was muddied (to varying degrees) by other people taking over. So, TOS has a lot of stuff in it that Roddenberry added to appeal to the station executives and possibly to the main-stream audience. His core ideology is in there, but you have to see past the occasional Cowboy-allusions and the depiction of gender roles (from today's point of view the latter is terrible, but for the time it was syndicated, it was actually progressive, but I digress).

So, if you watch TOS, you might not "get" it (well, chances are equally, you do), but don't despair in either case --- TNG is much better, but I'd still recommend having watched TOS first. The reason for this, is that you would have to watch TOS anyway, to watch Star Trek: Generations (Film #7). And by doing it first, you see how Humanity evolved between TOS and TNG. So, this is my suggestion;

If you insist, you could watch DSN (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine) before Voyager (where it chronologically belongs), but I found it rather dry, and very distant from Roddenberry's Star Trek. Disclaimer: This is my personal opinion; a lot of people will tell you that VOY is awful and DSN is great.

And if you really insist, you may then watch Star Trek: Enterprise (ENT), which is the prequel to TOS, shot after VOY. It kind of goes in the opposite direction than TNG, starting from TOS. (Note that TOS, TNG and ENT take place on a ship called Enterprise, so don't confuse the series (ENT) with the ship.)

Finally, avoid watching the "new" films and expecting Star Trek. They are called Star Trek, but they decidedly have nothing to do with the classical franchise. They're action movies, and they work as such. But they're devoid of plot and meaning. So, watch them, if you really want to have watched everything, but do it only after having watched everything else above. Also, be careful with Into Darkness as it tries very hard and partially succeeds (IMO, obviously) to retroactively destroy the second film (Wrath of Khan).

For a modern viewer, consider what you're looking for. If you want fantastic adventure, begin with Season 2 of Star Trek: The Next Generation. First watch the pilot (Encounter at Farpoint) - it establishes the characters and will tell you 90% of what you need to know about them. Season 2 is where the show 'grew the beard' (and originated that term) and started getting good.

If, instead, you are more interested in character-driven drama, begin with Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. This show splits the Trek fans somewhat - they either love it or hate it. It centers around a space station, not a starship, and is less episodic in nature than other shows in the Star Trek franchise.

Once you've started down the road, you will likely end up watching everything Star Trek if it catches your interest. Rather than give you a viewing order, which others have already done, I'd like to give you a brief synopsis of each show and movie grouping.

Star Trek: The Original Series (TOS): The show that started it all. A five year mission, exploring deep space. The Klingons here look different from the rest of the Klingons you'll see in the newer stuff (especially the movies). It's also very obviously from the 60s - the sets, costumes, music, etc are all dated to the modern eye. Well worth watching, but go in understanding what it is: proto-Trek - the ideas are there, but it is limited by the technology and audiences of the time.

TOS-era Movies: General rule for movies 1-6: the odd numbers are nowhere near as good as the even. Star Trek: The Motion Picture suffers from being written like an episode, not a movie. II, III, and IV are a longer story arc involving easily the most tumultuous time in TOS. II is likely the best Trek film. V is likely the 2nd worst, but VI ends it on a high note and shows just how much some characters have grown and changed.

Star Trek: The Next Generation: This is what most viewers who've been with the show for a while think of when you say "Star Trek". The plots are more complex than TOS, the characters more fully realized, and the ship feels like the future. Ironically, many of the modern conveniences we have bear a striking resemblance to the things they have on the ship - datapads, communicators, even the ship control systems all influenced the generation of engineers that make our toys now. The first season is painfully stop 'n go as actors and scripwriters figure out what works and what doesn't, but once it gets going it doesn't slow down much.

3a8082e126