I thought you've already got a spoiler tag?

Not sure.

Let's see:

Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father

I guess we do kind of.

It's kind of like Fallen Enchantress: Legendary Hereos

Star Trek: Into Darkness

OMG, that means Luke was kissing his sister.... oouuu

I'm a Trekkie dinosaur, the sort miffed by the first JJ iteration ... what irked me the most was the "comic superhero-ization" of the TOS characters (especially James T. Kirk) and the re-write of so much that not even the "new timeline" can explain, such as the idea that Chekov and Kirk's careers in Starfleet started virtually simultaneously.

Yeah, Shatner's Kirk was probably rightfully mocked for Shatner's wooden acting ... but however much of an egomaniac Shatner might be, at least his Kirk was believably human, fallible and flawed.  From TOS into the movies, we got the sense that while, yes, he was a young Captain, he learned some things through experience (and some of that through trying the wrong thing first and learning a lesson the hard way) that the Academy could not teach.  As he earned rank and prestige, his arrogance cause problems, too -- he nearly destroyed the Enterprise in the first Roddenberry-Trek movie when the Enterprise's engine imblance (due to the Enterprise being rushed amid refit to intercept V'ger) created a wormhole and the Enterprise was on a collision course with an asteroid in the wormhole; Kirk's attempt to deal with the situation would have resulted in the Enterprise being destroyed and the actual captain of the Enterprise, Decker, whom Kirk usurped to regain command of the Enterprise countermanded Kirk's order and saved the ship.  Similarly, in The Wrath of Khan, Kirk disregarded Starfleet regulations -- as cited by Spock's protege, Saavik -- in regards to encoutering a starship, even a 'fellow' Federation starship, when communications have not been established, resulting in devastating damage to the Enterprise and a lot of fatalities aboard the Enterprise, including Scotty's nephew.  Shatner's Kirk made a lot of mistakes, but was able to recover and deal with them ... there was a real sense, for me, that Shatner's Kirk was a real, believable character who forged his own destiny.

The Kirk portrayed by Chris Pine in the 2009 film was, by contrast, infallible and seemed to have "superhero"-esque predestiny/fate regardless of the complete lack of experience earned by Shatner's Kirk.  He was fated to be right in his arguments with more experienced officers including Pike and Spock despite having zero experience.

Is character development any better in Into Darkness?   For those of us die-hard "Trek dinosaurs" psychotically loyal to the original characters, would we find Into Darkness more palatable than Abrams' first Star Trek film?

Going to see it tomorrow...

I grew up with the original series....but all of them after I thought were rubbish.  The movies weren't much chop over the years either...until the last one....somehow it seemed 'better'....to the point that I'm looking forward to this one.

[normally that was something reserved purely for the Alien/s series]...

I saw it and enjoyed it. I mis-remembered some of the original lore, which made some of it confusing. 

But the action scenes and character development throughout was engaging. Spock has always been a hero to me (and Gene Roddenberry / Majel Barrett in real life).

Watching it tomorrow. Can't wait! (just 2D)

Good movie, good times!

I was a trekker since the beginning of the next generation, and I enjoy what they have done to the series.  It's an alternate timeline, kirk has different experiences and had to grow up faster.  Kirk is a lot younger, fresh out of the academy.  He's flying by the seat of his pants, staying true to the old vision of the character.  He is a bit more of a boyscout though.

I'll probably have to see it again.

I grew up with TOS being the only Trek for years before the first movies started being released. I personally was disappointed with the first trek film, because it was essentially a re-hashed episode of the "changeling" put on the big screen. I enjoyed WOK though i questioned why they would use Khan. An obscure villain from an even more obscure tv episode. Regardless it worked very well. WOK is considered by many to be the best of the TOS movies. The rest of the films up to TUC were mediocre at best, and abysmal at worst (Referring to ST:V).

I also enjoyed TNG/DS-9 until the Killer B's (Berman, and Braga) started tossing in their "I wish TOS never existed" attitude. Re-hashing tired old plots, and ideas. Up to the point of the "unofficial reboot" of Star Trek which was Enterprise. Which also used tired old plots, and ideas. You want to talk about Shatners cardboard acting. He was just Hamming it up for the camera for a show that could have been canceled any day back in the 60's. The entire cast of ENT easily falls into that category. The entire ENT cast seemed tired, bored, and uninteresting. I would be too if it was "Same crap, Different show".

Trekkies/Trekkers are the toughest critics on the planet. You can not satisfy them. No matter how hard you try. That is why i have respect for JJ Abrams. When i saw ST:2009 i went in expecting that this "Star Trek" not to be the same Trek as what i was used to. Inconsistencies, Plot holes the size of a black hole, Established canon totally disregarded. Yes it was all there. However there was one thing about JJ's Trek i can say that i cant say for most of the "prime movies". It was actually GOOD. Flaws and all Trek '09 was actually a good movie. THAT is what has been missing all these years from the prime movies, and shows. A GOOD TIME. JJ Abrams didn't give a damn about what trekkies thought, He made His Trek HIS way, and his reboot IMO will be as successful as the BSG reboot.

I haven't seen Into Darkness yet, but i've already been spoiled on it. I know the whole plot. Trekkies are bitching about re-hashing a tired old plot yet again. They fail to realize that Yes, This is an old plot. A plot, and villain for which Trekkies have demanded. With new twist. In a totally new universe. Yet we get bitching. I rest my case about Trekkies being impossible to please. JJ made a huge mistake IMO by trying to please the old school crowd. This is what JJ Abrams gets for giving the unforgiving trek fans what they wanted. Regardless of that the reviews are nothing but positive of Into Darkness.

I will go see the movie spoiled, and all. I will enjoy it for what it is.

KHAAAAAAAAN!

Heresy! TNG, DS9 and Voyager were absolutely brilliant! Especially DS9. 

Only Enterprise was bit shit, but even that one had its moments on occasion.

Not giving a damn about what Trekkies though is exactly why it shouldn't be called Star Trek.  Its very reminiscent of what Alan Emrich did to Master of Orion III.  JJ Abrams is Star Trek In Name Only, just as Quicksilver's Master of Orion III is Orion In Name Only.

Star Trek was not meant to be a plastic action series, it had a niche following and its abandoned it.  That's like creating some ritzy sparkling wine and calling it champagne.  Abrams' Star Trek is not better than Roddenberry's.  Popularity != better.  Its lost its origins and its touch, it lost its human-ness and has become basically a comic book set in space with flat, two-dimensional characters.  Shatner's Kirk was much more complex and had a lot more depth ... I don't blame the new actors, I blame the writers and Abrams for insulting slapping the name Star Trek on it.  Why the hell did he not just create something new, the way he wants, and give it an original name instead of taking a well recognized name and slapping it on something that bears little resemblance to it?

I never liked DS9 all that much. I never really liked Captain Sisko thus I never got into it.

TNG and Voyager I got into it pretty fast due to their captains especially with Picard.