Author Topic: Star Trek Into Darkness Review  (Read 24854 times)

Offline sherelled

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
    • View Profile
    • https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4555092605573&set=a.1551655401520.77168.1539197080&type=1&theater
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Review
« Reply #30 on: May 22, 2013, 06:26:50 am »
I agree.....

Offline The Evasive 1

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 849
    • View Profile
    • My Space Page
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Review
« Reply #31 on: May 22, 2013, 05:03:17 pm »
Wow Kip & Emp you two are Trekkies for real  :o I am too. I still favor the television series over any of the movies. That's just me. :)

I think Trek works better on TV than in the movies. To Abrams's credit his films are the first Trek films (with the possible exception of The Motion Picture) that look and feel like movies and not just bigger TV shows.

I got my first exposure to Trek mainly through the the original series films. ABC used to show Trek films on Sunday night, but I really got into courtesy of The Next Generation. There used to be a two hour Trek bloc in the afternoon where I grew up (TNG and TOS). I liked TNG and eventually got into TOS. But I liked the TOS movies better than that series at first. Over time I came to appreciate that series more.

My favorite Trek series is Deep Space Nine. The Dominion War is what finally put it over TNG for me.

As for films I think TOS films are the best. They marked a passage of time in a way that the TNG films didn't. It remains to be seen how much we will grow with the Abrams rebooted crew. However the Spock-Uhura romance provides an interesting way to witness the character progression in the new films, as does Kirk becoming more mature.

Ranking series:
1. Deep Space Nine (Dominion War and great character development and arc-based storytelling put this one over)
2. The Next Generation (My favorite crew still)
3. The Original Series (This one had the highest sense of adventure)
4. Enterprise (I thought ENT was the worst series until the third and really the fourth season)
5. Voyager  (I never could fully get into the characters though VOY had great production values and it did have some good villains)

Similar to how Kip feels, I don't know if I can rank individual episodes. It's very hard to do. Ah screw it, I'm going to take a stab at it.

A Top 25 (in no particular order, save #1)

1. The Best of Both Worlds (TNG)
2. City on the Edge of Forever (TOS)
3. In the Pale Moonlight (DS9)
4. All Good Things (TNG)
5. Trials and Tribble-lations (DS9)
6. Scorpion (VOY)
7. Space Seed (TOS)
8. The Visitor (DS9)
9. The Doomsday Machine (TOS)
10. What You Leave Behind (DS9)
11. The Year of Hell (VOY)
12. Chain of Command (TNG)
13. Redemption (TNG)
14. The Die is Cast (DS9)
15. The Augments Arc (ENT)
16. Mirror, Mirror (TOS)
17. Equinox (VOY)
18. Vulcan Reformation Arc (ENT)
19. The Circle Arc (DS9)
20. The Enterprise Incident (TOS)
21. Balance of Terror (TOS)
22. The Babel/United Arc (ENT)
23. The Killing Game (VOY)
24. The Way of the Warrior (DS9)
25. Sacrifice of the Angels (DS9)

There's just so many more: Q Who (TNG), Far Beyond the Stars (DS9), Timeless (VOY), Faces (VOY), Unimatrix Zero (VOY), Dark Frontier (VOY), The Jem'Hadar (DS9), Descent Part 1 (TNG), Sins of the Father (TNG), Face of the Enemy (TNG), QPid (TNG), Azati Prime (ENT), Silent Enemy (ENT), The Defector (TNG), The Menagerie (TOS), The Cage (TOS), Where No Man Has Gone Before (TOS), Errand of Mercy (TOS), The Trouble with Tribbles (TOS), The Enemy Within (TOS), Day of the Dove (TOS), Duet (DS9), Waltz (DS9), The Adversary (DS9), By Inferno's Light (DS9), Nor the Battle to the Strong (DS9), Crossover (DS9), Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges (DS9), Call to Arms (DS9), A Time to Stand (DS9), The Changing Face of Evil (DS9), Tacking it into the Wind (DS9), Rocks and Shoals (DS9), To the Death (DS9), Broken Link (DS9), Apocalypse Rising (DS9), Tears of the Prophets (DS9), House of Quark (DS9), Heart of Glory (TNG), Conspiracy (TNG), A Matter of Honor (TNG), Tapestry (TNG), Yesterday's Enterprise (TNG), Sarek (TNG), Unification (TNG), The Mind's Eye (TNG), Darmok (TNG), Datalore (TNG), Power Play (TNG), I Borg (TNG), Relics (TNG), The Pegasus (TNG), The Drum head (TNG), The Enemy (TNG), Preemptive Strike (TNG), Unity (VOY), Message in a Bottle (VOY), Broken Bow (ENT), Judgment (ENT), Renegeration (ENT), Similitude (ENT), Harbinger (ENT), Damage (ENT), Countdown (ENT), The Expanse (ENT), In a Mirror Darkly (ENT), Twilight (ENT).
Wow. Really nice stab at ranking of the series episodes. I think my brain would have exploded had I tried. But, all in all, I agree with most of the ranking you got here. Except that you forgot 'Amok Time' (TOS) somewhere in there.  ;)

My take on "Into Darkness" was that I had to go in being as unbiased as possible. Which was difficult. I am a die hard Star Trek fan I was one of those who hated what Abrams did in rebooting in 2009. I've felt the characters portrayed are a pale comparison to the TOS characters. I don't like the Uhuru/Spock romance. I guess I felt it was Hollywood's typical action to make sure the black female lead (in most cases it has been Zoe) becomes some white character's romance. Uhuru finally became someone's Trek chocalate fantasy. I also was tripping over the destruction on Vulcan. Really? The new Kirk is pretty much an arrogant, selfish jerk. I never found it believable that anyone would follow this guy. Not to mention he somehow gets promoted from ensign to Captain after just graduating from the academy. Huh?  Anyway, I shouldn't have been surprised as most reboots nowadays try to destroy alot of the familiar and then give the original names to the new when the "new" could have stood on it's own merit without trying to sell the audience that it is the same or closely similar character to what they remember. The recent Battlestar Galactica series comes to mind here, mainly. Though there are plenty of other examples.

With all that said, I did think the first reboot film had alot of action and the cinematography was excellent. The pace was good too. I could have actually enjoyed it if not for the issues I already mentioned. Besides, over time I've tried to except the whole "alternate reality" thing. So, I figured I could go in and just take the new film for what it was worth. Entertainment. In fact, I actually thought "Into Darkness" was okay. Like others in this thread, I felt Spock was the real star. However, after I went home, I started thinking about it and I kind of soured a bit. It really was a big mash up of TOS episodes and movies, but it felt like the way someone who really didn't know the separate products on their own and just mixed it together just to try to appease an audience that did. Kind of like when you are talking to someone who seems like they know what they're saying, but the more you listen you realize they don't have any idea what they are talking about. Or like they didn't understand the meaning of something clearly and are trying to explain it incorrectly. I also thought back on some of the things that happened with/to the Enterprise and the actions the character's made that just seemed...stupid. The movie writers even put in other SF references that aren't Trek. Khan does something that is a "wink" at another popular sci-fi flick, which was kinda cool. But, when he kept doing it, it got kind of stale.

Anyway, I wouldn't tell anyone not to go see "Into Darkness".  It was decent and I think alot of folks will like it. Especially younger people who never grew up with TOS or have a connection to it or those not so dedicated to "Gene Roddenberry's formula" for Star Trek.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2013, 05:58:15 pm by Evasive_1 »

Offline The Evasive 1

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 849
    • View Profile
    • My Space Page
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Review
« Reply #32 on: May 22, 2013, 06:05:04 pm »
:-\ I agree Deep Space Nine was the bomb. I googled Avery Brooks to see what he has been up to.  A couple voice overs. But not much since DPN. I loved him in Spencer For Hire. Now that is one they should bring back.  ;D

Unfortunately DS9 didn't have great ratings and seems to be the show that many officials forget. I thought it eventually became the best Trek series and it's a shame that it doesn't get the regard that it deserves. At least there is a rabid fanbase for DS9 that remembers how good the show was.
Did you know there was a pole from the Star Trek Facebook page as to which series had the most action? I believe DS9 won. Once again, an example of how professional critics say one thing, but the audience of regular folk say another.  :D

Offline sherelled

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
    • View Profile
    • https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4555092605573&set=a.1551655401520.77168.1539197080&type=1&theater
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Review
« Reply #33 on: May 22, 2013, 09:05:50 pm »
Evasiveone. Interesting Factoid.  Yep! Deep Space Nine did not get the accolades it should have. :-[

Offline Emperorjones

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 8645
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Review
« Reply #34 on: May 23, 2013, 01:03:56 pm »
:-\ I agree Deep Space Nine was the bomb. I googled Avery Brooks to see what he has been up to.  A couple voice overs. But not much since DPN. I loved him in Spencer For Hire. Now that is one they should bring back.  ;D

Unfortunately DS9 didn't have great ratings and seems to be the show that many officials forget. I thought it eventually became the best Trek series and it's a shame that it doesn't get the regard that it deserves. At least there is a rabid fanbase for DS9 that remembers how good the show was.
Did you know there was a pole from the Star Trek Facebook page as to which series had the most action? I believe DS9 won. Once again, an example of how professional critics say one thing, but the audience of regular folk say another.  :D

I did forget Amok Time it seems. It was meant to be somewhere on the list. I was definitely one of my favorite episodes. Regarding DS9 I thought it was generally well received by the critics but not by all of the regular fans.

Of all the series I can agree that overall it had the most action. TOS had a lot of action too. The rest of the shows had their moments.

I largely agree with what you said about younger fans perhaps getting Into Darkness. Though at the same time I think Into Darkness suffered from the writers throwing in too many references, particularly the big twist. I mean that really has no relevance without some knowledge of what came before.

I was curious to know what exactly was the big wink you were referring to with Khan?

Offline Vic Vega

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 4143
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Review
« Reply #35 on: May 24, 2013, 04:42:43 pm »
Finally saw this.

I'm glad to say it is a lot better than I thought it was gonna be.

Honestly, I'm surprised that I liked it as much as I did seeing that it is a essentialy a remake

Lots of great action kept the movie moving even when some of the character beats seemed lacking.
Aside from Pine and the guy that plays Scotty (they have great chemistry together), I didn't get the feling that these guys were all that tight.

They really need to find a way to get the whole cast involved more in these things.

Not sure why a White British actor is playing a dude named Khan (who was a Sikh in the original) but then again, Ricardo Montoban
wasn't Indian either. Cumberbatch is really good in this, truth be told.

The plot was engaging and timely, but I have to say I'll be glad when Action movie directors get off this War On Terror kick (Dark Knight, Iron Man3).

I'm glad to see that the Star Trek tradtiion of bat sh*t crazy StarFleet personnel is still being carried on.

After seeing this movie I have a better feeling about him directing Star Wars.

Star Trek? Ehh.

Offline FLEX HECTIC

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
    • View Profile
    • FLEX HECTIC
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Review
« Reply #36 on: May 24, 2013, 07:06:24 pm »
Trekkies still alive... Outrage!


(Checks engine room of Death Star for firing malfunction!) ;D

Offline Derrick

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
    • Blood & Ink
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Review
« Reply #37 on: May 27, 2013, 05:33:36 pm »
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
2013
Paramount Pictures
Directed by J.J. Abrams
Produced by Bryan Burk, Damon Lindelof, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci
Written by Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof
Based on “STAR TREK” created by Gene Roddenberry


It was in the theaters 30 years ago and there have been ten Star Trek movies that came after it but none of them have matched the popularity and success of “The Wrath of Khan.” Ask any Star Trek fan what his favorite Star Trek movie is and 9 out of 10 times you’ll probably get “The Wrath of Khan” as an answer. Which kinda explains why Paramount Pictures has been trying their best to remake that particular Star Trek movie. They tried with “Nemesis” which I consider to be the worst Star Trek movie of all. Yes, even worse than “The Final Frontier” which is at least goofy nonsense that plays like the first cousin of “Spock’s Brain” on steroids. And the last Star Trek TV series to date; “Enterprise” tried to pull a “Wrath of Khan” in a three-part episode that guest-starred Brent Spiner as a Khan Lite bad guy.

Almost from the time when 2009’s “Star Trek” reboot hit theaters, fans have been asking if the new Star Trek team was going to remake “The Wrath of Khan.”  J.J. Abrams, the director of that movie and the sequel, STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS continually insisted that they were not going to remake “The Wrath of Khan.” And you know what? He’s right. Oh, there are characters in STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS named Khan and Carol Marcus but they bear only a superficial resemblance to the characters in that earlier film. And yes, that scene is recreated and somebody gets to scream “Khaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnn!” but for me, STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS isn’t a remake of “Wrath of Khan” at all. That doesn’t mean I’m as giddy about it as I was with the first one but my reasons for that have nothing to do with the nods to “Wrath of Khan”

A secret Section 31 installation in London is bombed and the bomber is a rogue Starfleet Intelligence agent named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) Turns out that the bombing was a ruse to get as many starship captains and first officers to attend an emergency meeting at Starfleet HQ so that Harrison can attack them with a gunship and eliminate as many as he can. Admiral Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) the mentor and surrogate father of Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) is killed in the attack.

Kirk gets permission from Admiral Alexander Marcus (Peter Weller) to pursue Harrison to his hideout on the Klingon homeworld of Kronos. Armed with 72 prototype photon torpedoes, Kirk gets the band back together; Mr. Spock (Zachary Quinto) Dr.‘Bones’ McCoy (Karl Urban) Lt. Uhura (Zoe Saldana) Chief Engineer Scotty (Simon Pegg) Lt. Sulu (John Cho) and Ensign Chekov (Anton Yelchin) and takes the starship Enterprise into forbidden Klingon territory to bring Harrison back to Earth to pay for his crimes. The mission is quickly complicated by the revelation that Harrison is actually Khan, a genetically enhanced superhuman who has been in frozen cryosleep for 300 years. The photon torpedoes actually contain cryogenic pods holding more genetic supermen. Turns out that Marcus had been holding them hostage to get Khan to develop advanced weaponry for him. Beats me why Admiral Marcus is so hell-bent on starting a war with The Klingon Empire. Or how he thinks that a 300 year old man could help develop advanced weapons but STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS isn’t the kind of movie that slows down enough to let you engage your brain long enough to ask pesky questions like that.

Marcus has constructed a sort of super-Enterprise, the USS Vengeance and he goes after the Enterprise himself, determined to eliminate Khan once and for all. And if that means destroying Kirk, his loyal crew and the Enterprise as well, so be it.

Strangely enough for a movie that aims to be as loud and as punchy punchy run run as it possibly can, STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS contains plenty of good, solid performances and some really nice scenes between the principal characters. I got a big chuckle out of a moment on the bridge when Sulu is in command and has to run a really big bluff.  Karl Urban and Simon Pegg I enjoyed the most as they do an amazing job of evoking the essence of DeForest Kelley and James Doohan without imitating them. I’m half convinced that Urban must somehow have been related to Kelley.

Benedict Cumberbatch as John Harrison/Khan makes for a formidable bad guy and maybe I’m a little off in my thinking here but for me, Cumberbatch was more interesting as John Harrison. Once the big reveal that he’s Khan is made, I was actually disappointed. I wanted to know more about Harrison and his deal and when he proclaims that he’s Khan my first thought was; “That’s the best they could come up with?” But it’s just such a pleasure to listen to Cumberbatch and see what fun he’s having double and triple-crossing everybody in sight.
Peter Weller follows admirably in the tradition of previous Starfleet Admirals who have gone batsh*t crazy (seriously, doesn’t Starfleet do annual psych evaluations on these guys?) with gusto and it’s always a pleasure to see him on screen. As Dr. Carol Marcus, Alice Eve appears to be on the ship for two reasons and one of them is her already infamous scene where she strips down to her underwear for no apparent reason at all. It didn’t bother me at all but what does bother me is that guys are complaining about it. Really? Since when do guys complain about gratuitous scenes of hot chicks in their underwear in a movie?

So should you see STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS? It’s a solid action-adventure space opera, full of explosions, chases, fist fights and yelling; “Fire all phasers!” If you’re a long-time Star Trek fan like myself I think that in order to watch it you have to come to terms that this is a Star Trek that is made for the movie audience of today. It’s the spectacle, shouty rapid-fire dialog and CGI extravagance audiences demand in their science fiction summer blockbusters. Star Trek TV shows are the way to go for allegorical explorations of contemporary culture and to delve into character.

No, it’s not the Star Trek I grew up with but it’s heart is in the right place and that goes a long way with me. STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS is an acceptable sequel but now that the five-year mission is underway I’m going to be looking for more from the next one than just a Warp Nine ride.

PG-13
132 minutes



Offline KidKamikaze10

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 150
  • Some Nigerian Guy
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Review
« Reply #38 on: May 27, 2013, 08:53:45 pm »
I liked the movie, but it could have been much better.

For one, it would have been a lot better if it wasn't a remake.  I could have done with an actual Enterprise vs Section 31 plot, instead of dragging Khan along.  If John Harrison was just that, or a rogue Section 31 agent (or even an active Section 31 agent), I think that could have tighten things up a bit.

In short, the remake attempts did more to harm the movie than help.


Other problems include lack of character developments, plot convolution, and the fact that the Klingon threat just wasn't utilized as well as I would have liked.

Offline Emperorjones

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 8645
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Review
« Reply #39 on: May 28, 2013, 02:04:46 am »
I take issue with one thing that Derrick posted. Wrath of Khan isn't the most successful Trek film. It is the most influential. And arguably the most popular. But in terms of financial success there are several films that made more money, including The Voyage Home, First Contact, Star Trek (2009), and Into Darkness.

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/Star-Trek

But I largely agree with both Derrick and Kid Kamikaze on their takes on the film.

Offline The Evasive 1

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 849
    • View Profile
    • My Space Page
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Review
« Reply #40 on: June 03, 2013, 01:42:01 pm »
I take issue with one thing that Derrick posted. Wrath of Khan isn't the most successful Trek film. It is the most influential. And arguably the most popular. But in terms of financial success there are several films that made more money, including The Voyage Home, First Contact, Star Trek (2009), and Into Darkness.

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/Star-Trek

But I largely agree with both Derrick and Kid Kamikaze on their takes on the film.
I took Derrick's comment to mean 'Wrath of Khan' was the most successful among fans. It's the most popular among most diehard Trek fans. At least that is been my experience.

I was curious to know what exactly was the big wink you were referring to with Khan?
Think Roy from "Blade Runner" and what he did to his creator.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2013, 01:44:16 pm by Evasive_1 »

Offline Hypestyle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 5883
  • Intellectual Conqueror
    • View Profile
    • Hypestyle's Homebase
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Review
« Reply #41 on: June 04, 2013, 04:25:57 pm »
spoilers
*'*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

anybody notice the scale model of the Vengeance in admiral marcus's office?  And that was Peter Weller?  Amazing.

.. the reversal of spock's original sacrifice in WOK was intriguing.

.. So was Kirk hooking up with two Caitian women early on?

.. yay for Original Spock cameo!  (where is new vulcan? what does original spock call himself?)

.. finally the klingons!  I noticed no follow-ups by the end-- no full war after the Khan assault?

.. nice to see Scotty's sidekick is still there.. heh.. his style in wardrobe is.. courageous..

.. I wanted more follow-up with Spock/Uhura by the end... more intimate moments..

.. Sulu gets a taste of the captain's chair! easter egg!

.. a starship attack while in warp?  Geez!  I wonder if they'll do this again..

.. I wonder if the new Enterprise has some upgraded Vengeance tech.

.. a tribble!  but just one?  aw..

Dr. Marcus joins the team!  neat-- next up, where is Yeoman Rand?  Lt. M'Ress?

.. Khan frozen again!  So I guess part 3 or 4 will un-freeze him, heh.
Be Kind to Someone Today.

Offline The Evasive 1

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 849
    • View Profile
    • My Space Page
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Review
« Reply #42 on: June 06, 2013, 01:08:45 pm »
.. a starship attack while in warp?  Geez!  I wonder if they'll do this again..
Someone else mentioned this when I was talking to them about the movie. I pointed out that this is not anything new. It was actually done in the TOS (and actually TNG, if I recall correctly) several times. In fact, it's pretty much canon in the overall Trek universe. It's to the point that in books and other Trek media, It's explained whether phasers could  or could not be used (faster than light combat afterall) or only photon torpedoes can be used depending on the writer's interpretation. 

This is one of those points I made earlier about the writers of the re imagined series appearing to do a crash course on all Trek history and then trying to present something without understanding it fully. Then again, maybe in the "new" Trek universe starships can't fight in warp.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2013, 01:19:09 pm by Evasive_1 »

The_Scribe

  • Guest
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Review
« Reply #43 on: September 19, 2013, 08:55:03 pm »
I almost didn't look at this movie on PPV.  I am older and needing more artistry to my movies.  The little kid in me enjoyed the action and sci-fi.  The adult in me knows too much to enjoy some of the "more rushed for dramatic effect" scenes.  Here are a few things:

1. Star Trek tech does not require Khan's regenerative genes.  They open and close wounds perfectly with the Sick Bay tech already.
2. The original series fought most of their battles in warp drive.  So what?
3. What happened to the space dock from which the Enterprise left?  At the end, the ship is falling into the earth.  There are no space docks, orbital satellites or space stations in earth's atmosphere to "beam" the crew off the ship?  Not a tractor beam in sector 001 huh?
4.  Why does Kahn have a portable transporter but the enterprise does not?  Scotty claims to develop great transport tech.
5.  The writer's cannot do anything with Uhura but make her "Space Ho"?  She may as well get in bed with the tailed twin aliens.
     Uhura, "...Let me speak Kligon."  Very dramatic moment.  If there are characters that can speak Kligon, why hasn't someone made
     a computer program to translate the language to Enligh - say a Universal translator or something? 

Enjoyed the show very much though. 
« Last Edit: September 19, 2013, 10:08:33 pm by The_Scribe »

Offline Emperorjones

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 8645
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Review
« Reply #44 on: September 20, 2013, 01:56:16 am »
Hey Scribe. Hope this isn't stepping on toes but I'm a Trek geek and I wanted to reply to your points.
1. Generally 23rd century medical science isn't quite as advanced as that, IMO. In Wrath of Khan, Kirk has to wear reading glasses because he's allergic to a treatment for astigmatism (?). Also, in Wrath of Khan, there was no medical procedure to resurrect Spock, though he sustained the same kind of damage. Being half-Vulcan he was stronger than Kirk and would've had a better chance of survival if the sick bay tech was all that.
2. I don't recall the Enterprise fighting their battles in warp. Most of the time they warped away to catch up to someone or to retreat. I think the fighting battles in warp thing is more of an Abrams innovation. It certainly looks good but I can't say with certainty that this is something that has been shown before on the original series.
3. As for Earth's defenses, or lack thereof, this is a common failing of Trek that has afflicted almost every series. Some of the most egregious were the lack of ships or protection against the second Xindi planet killer (on Enterprise), the Borg (The Next Generation: Best of Both Worlds and to some extent First Contact; though at least there was a big battle closer to Earth in First Contact), and the Breen attack on Earth (Deep Space Nine).
4. Good question. I'm wondering if the higher ups didn't take the tech away from Scotty and with Admiral Marcus being head of the Fleet, or whatever, he would have the authority to do with it as he wished. Plus Section 31 doesn't play by the rules anyway.
5. I've got mixed feelings about the Spock-Uhura relationship. It took me a minute to get used to it. I think it adds some needed character development for Uhura, it arguably puts Uhura into the movie's big three (Spock, Kirk, Uhura) and moves Bones to the side. That being said, too much of her new importance rests on being Spock's girlfriend. I got tired of the relationship talk in Into Darkness. As for her speaking Klingon, I think that was put in there as a rejoinder to the original Uhura not being able to effectively speak or translate Klingon in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.  You do make a good point about the universal translator. Due to the events of the show Enterprise, Starfleet should know more Klingon language and physiology, which would contradict the ignorance of both Uhura and Bones in Star Trek VI.