July 18 2024


An archive of Star Trek News

Star Trek Into Darkness Spoilers

1 min read

New information about Star Trek into Darkness has been revealed courtesy of a recent media event in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

In addition to some plot points, a character played by an actor new to the franchise has been confirmed. Spoilers below the cut.

  • Peter Weller is playing Admiral Marcus (probably the father of Carol Marcus)
  • The father of the sick child cured by Harrison has to go on a suicide mission, with a Starfleet ring bomb.
  • Kirk breaks the prime direction to save Spock.
  • A lie gets Kirk busted down from Captain, but he eventually returns as the first officer under Pike.
  • Spock is assigned to another ship.
  • Kirk ends up in bed with two “cat-women.”
  • Harrison attacks a summit where captains are present, injuring (perhaps killing) Pike.
  • During the Spock/Harrison fight; Harrison and Spock go through several buildings and end up fighting on top of ships flying around the city.

About The Author

25 thoughts on “Star Trek Into Darkness Spoilers

  1. The more I keep hearing about this film, the more I’m wanting to hold on to my money. This just sounds so dumb!

  2. Is the an action movie like a Bruce Willis or Transformers film or actually Star Trek? aka “Yippee Kayi Yay, MF.”

    (Perhaps it is lucky that some countries will see the film before the US buffs. At least you can be prepared for the shock before you see the movie!)

  3. You dare to call TOS “dumb?” and call yourself a fan? Wow buddy, did JJ send you?

  4. Or save your money and NOT see the movie! I don’t know about you, but my Star Trek movie money is going toward the theatrical release of “The Best of Both Worlds!”

  5. Agreed, but I do long to see Into Darkness even if it were absolutely terrible. I’d agree in seeing “The Best of Both World”, only because it is in the large screen cinema. (Unless I happen go to the US, I won’t have that opportunity, because I’m outside there, which is rather a pity.

  6. I think you might just a little harsh here, and I don’t think that’s what Daniel really means. I see it as fear that this movie will not meet expectations in what we consider acceptable Trek. I too have reservations only because I see Trek as more cerebral and coming before physical action per se. I.e Saying Spock is jumping between starship instead, which he s better known, for his logic and brilliant intellect. (In your reply here, I too saw the episode ‘Spock’s Brain’, and that would apply to TOS without any real question.)

  7. ahem, Spock’s Brain for example????? That was more dumb, than when mr dumb went to dumbsville and got lost….

  8. Yikes. I wasn’t calling the series overall dumb. You have to admit there is the odd episode where the entire premise is a little silly. But that’s what makes it fun and entertaining sometimes. Many episodes are intelligent and have interesting themes and provide great social commentary… but there are a few that are just goofy and enjoyable in that way. Regardless of how cerebral the story is, I’ve always enjoyed Star Trek. I’m not a harsh critic I guess.

  9. Good idea. The only certain thing about these new movies for me is they’re not absolute must-sees like the TOS films. More like something I’ll see -or not- depending on how I’m inclined.

  10. Abrams doesn’t have a cerebral, allegorical, metaphorical bone in his body. He’s all about pacing, what things look like, and how you react when you see it. Let’s be frank, you get what you pay for, and, in a sense, we paid for this new movie when we collectively shelled out big bucks for its predecessor. In Abrams, Orci, and Kurtzman, you will never get that warm sense of forward-thinking ST from a Harve Bennett or Theodore Surgeon teleplay, or even the swashbuckling humanism of Nicholas Meyer. Abrams’ Star Trek is nominal Star Trek. The spirit left that corpse back in the Berman days, and unless somebody with Roddenberry’s genes or a more hopeful storytelling command of humanity’s future takes ST by the reigns, this is all you’re gonna get.

  11. I have to agree with everything you said about Abrams’ Star Trek. I have to admit, I hate his depiction of Star Trek. I don’t just dislike what he’s doing, but also how he is doing it. As you correctly point out, Abrams Trek has nothing intellectual to offer, and it’s proud of it. I hate his style, too. I remember when Trek had people like Okuda, Zimmerman, Westmore, and Goldsmith. When those creative individuals came together, they created a convincing vision of the future and Star Trek that looked and sounded great. (With much less money!) That was real quality. You could see and feel there was real love and care for detail, consistency, etc. I don’t see any of that in Abrams Trek. All we get now is cheap CG-aliens, crappy sets, costumes, and ship designs. Yuk. That’s just cheap and lazy. Honestly, I really don’t care about this “Star Trek”, and I know that I definitely will not be spending a dime on this movie.

  12. Everyone attacked the first Abrams Trek, too, but he made a fine movie. It will be what it will be. My partner and I are planning to see the new movie in IMAX 3D as a treat, and we DO have tickets to the TNG “Best of Both Worlds” event in April.

  13. Well, it’ll depend on whether Harrison is Khan or not… After all, Khan always was limited to rather two dimensional thinking… 🙂

  14. Each creative force that has taken on the Star Trek mantle itself has added something very valuable to it. Until now. Roddenberry, Harve Bennett, Nic Meyer, Leonard Nimoy, Rick Berman, Brannon Braga, and Manny Coto all added something… Some obviously more than others, and it can certainly be argued that Braga was better as a piece rather than the central player, but nevertheless, each of those men added rich texture to Star Trek. What has JJ Abrams fundamentally added? The only thing I can think of is his name, which enabled a bigger budget, which resulted in a different sort of film. But give that money to Manny Coto and pair him with a quality director and what would happen? I doubt the effects would suffer, the action would actually matter and be believeable, and, almost certainly, the audience would actually feel something and care for these people. If Spock dies in this movie, will anyone have the emotional reaction of Spock dying in TWOK? And it’s not just that we’d known Nimoy a lot longer. There’s an artificiality to this Star Trek that makes it’s bigger budgets seem counter-productive… Kind of like how the pizzazz of the Prequel Trilogy doesn’t hold up to the real sets and environments of the Original Trilogy in Star Wars… In Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, we meet Valeris… I’d contend, by the end of that picture, we care more about her than we do any of the main characters in Abrams’ Trek… At least those are my feelings on it.

  15. Yep, you’re definitely on to something here. As hard as I’ve always been on the Berman era, he at least gave the writers room to explore philosophical and moral ideas even if he was more interested (perhaps rightfully so) in ratings. I never thought I’d say that a poor story arc in DS9 or a so-so story arc in Voyager has more emotional resonance than Abrams’ Star Trek, but it’s rather true. That said, Abrams knows excitement and he knows how to push buttons. The problem is that his work has a perishable quality to it that doesn’t jibe with the perceived timelessness of Star Trek. It’s funny. I will eventually see this movie because I’m a starship Enterprise junkie and I like to see it moving across a cinema screen. It’s sort of sad that I’m not actually looking forward to seeing what once were the characters that gave that enormous hunk of metal a personality.

    I also think you’re spot on about Spock’s death — or whoever’s death, if there will even be a death. Abrams destroyed Vulcan in his first movie and the only character who seemed to care (think about it) was Nimoy’s Spock. That canonical disruption should have shaken everyone up, but because these movies are for the “next generation” of Star Trek fans and not ones who predate 2009, who cares? It’s just another planet. Alderaan’s destruction was more meaningful.

  16. And even Nimoy’s Spock clearly cared more about whales than his mother or home planet?!? He’s been willing to go back in time to fix things before, why not now when several billion Vulcans have been wiped away? Just didn’t make sense, andyou’re absolutely right, Alderaan was way more meaningful… Why? Because the characters George Lucas created, actually reacted to the event and the script actually indicated it was a big deal, not just another action set piece.


    Think about what I just said there… GEORGE LUCAS, by comparison, is a master of dialogue, emotion, and subtelty? Whaaaa?!?! Compared to JJ Abrams’s Star Trek, he is, indeed… and that says it, doesn’t it?

  17. Not entirely. Some of the hateful remarks by fans have had purism overtones all over it.

Comments are closed.

©1999 - 2024 TrekToday and Christian Höhne Sparborth. Star Trek and related marks are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. TrekToday and its subsidiary sites are in no way affiliated with CBS Studios Inc. | Newsphere by AF themes.