I actually did the same, and preferred Star Trek. I found myself yawning in Ironman (and that was the one I was most looking forward to). I remember thinking, "If someone asks me about Ironman in the next few weeks, I don't think I will remember anything particularly special." I'm not a Trekkie by any means (this one was hubby's choice), but I was more engaged with the story and I enjoyed it as a whole more than I thought I would. It might have been a more personal thing, though, as I haven't seen a Star Trek movie (or TV show) in many years, so remembering/seeing key characters reminded me of my childhood, when I had old Star Trek storybook records ... and I think Zachary Quinto is flawless as Spock. I haven't analyzed them much beyond that, but that's my take. ....

Much the same response: was more excited about Iron Man 3, but far preferred Star Trek Into Darkness (still find it hard to resist putting a colon somewhere in that title, but that's another story...) IM had a couple of clever moments, but felt needlessly complex and unfocused, cluttered with peripheral people we didn't really care about. ST was gripping, focused on character, played cleverly with Trek history but without alienating people who didn't get the references - and above all, it stirred emotions in the audience. I love high-concept tentpole movies, but so many these days are like firework displays; they don't care about engaging you with the characters, they just want you to say 'ooh' and 'aaah' at the pretty colors and loud noises. Despite a few flaws, ST was packed with real emotions and character, and that's better than fireworks any day!

** SPOILER ALERT! Stop reading if you didn't see the movies yet. I have to give away some plot points in my short reviews to explain myself, because I don't want to beat around the bushes. ** Overall, I enjoyed Iron Man much more than Star Trek. For the most part, it was fun and entertaining, but the major twist was disappointing and the ending left me with a bad taste in my mouth. Of course Iron Man has become just a slightly more sophisticated Transformers franchise. Part 2 and Part 3 were huge battles of material with lots of brainless baddies - and contrary to Transformers it was entertaining to look at, brilliantly put into scene. Building up a huge bad guy however, only to reveal him as a nobody, was very underwhelming. The potential of the real villain behind him was there (interesting set-up, but without an emotional pay-off). Who is this guy? Simply a flat psychotic megalomaniac? Pepper turns into superwoman in the final act, for no purpose at all, since they never set this up beforehand. And in the end, Shane Black wraps the story up miraculously within one minute. Having your main character utter the words "I am a changed man now" doesn't make it true and therefore not satisfying. Star Trek on the other hand was completely illogical from the get-go. The twists and turns they pulled on us felt very forced and unbelieveable and were just there to increase the speed of the plot. It felt like jumping from an awesome visual to the next. Ridding Kirk from command of the Enterprise and then getting him back into captain's chair in like five minutes - what was the purpose of that? I do appreciate how they tried to establish a buddy movie here, by showing the crisis of both main characters Kirk and Spock upfront. It's buddy movie 101 actually. Like in Lethal Weapon, one has the major crisis, the other one has a minor problem. But in my opinion, they put too much emphasise on Spock's minor (relationship problem with Uhura, because he appeared not to show emotions) which came off as cheap and soap-opera-ish. Kirk's set-up on the other hand could have been very good, if it wasn't for the cheap pay-off. They did follow it to it's obvious conclusion, him sacrificing his life for the crew of the Enterprise -- only to pull a predictable Deus-ex machina on us in the final act and destroying everything that was set up before.

While watching both movies, I liked them, but the more distance I got from both the less they made sense. In Iron Man, the villain couldn't die, then he dies. That never made sense. And having The Mandarin broadcasting from Miami is ridiculous. Then for a takedown of Star Trek and its flaws, read this: http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness-the-spoiler-faq-508927844 I have to admit I liked the spectacle of both. I remember the "barrel of monkeys" scene fondly from Iron Man, and Star Trek had terrific production values. I agree with commenter Sven that Star Trek had too many plot points thrown against the wall and none of them were really given time to breathe. What gets me the more I think about it though is how the Star Trek movie tries to but really doesn't embrace the ethos of the tv shows, where it's mostly about exploration rather than explosions. Kirk gets a nice speech at the end (after thousands have probably died), but should that really placate people who want something more, shall we say, humanist, from a Star Trek movie? The movie doesn't find a successful balance between supporting the Star Trek "ethos" and being a summer popcorn movie, in my opinion. It tries, what with Spock's dislike of the mission, questions over whether to launch the attack from a distance with missiles or to arrest "John Harrison" in person and bring him to justice, and Kirk's tacked-on speech. But in the end what you remember is the crushed skulls, the destroyed buildings, the Bourne-like fight sequences, and poor Alice Eve undressing in front of all of us. If I had to pick one I liked better I'd say Star Trek, because I'm a fan of the series and because it's just more interesting visually and raises some interesting questions. Star Trek tries to be relevant and ask big questions about terrorism and militarization. Exploring how the world of the Federation would react in a time of war is interesting, to me. Star Trek at least has pretensions to relevance and ideas, whereas Iron Man is one big distraction, which I don't like as much.

um, I haven't seen either yet (i'm a mommy of littles. i don't get to take part in all the opening wknd shenanigans), but I think I'm most excited for Star Trek. I really liked the first one and the hype for this one got me all googly inside. IM3 got me excited only because I like RDJ and I like shit that flies and cool special effects on the big screen. Full stop. I was never a Trekkie, but I'm a space nerd so by default anything set in space gets me all hot 'n bothered. I usually don't like to read reviews before seeing a movie, but I totally broke protocol to read The Bitter Script Reader's breakdown of Star Trek and now I'm even MORE excited to see it! If you haven't read it, do it... DO IT NOW! It seems, at the core, ST has more weight in the writing and story/character development than IM3. That is, of course, my humble and completely uneducated opinion.

For me... Iron Man 3. Just. Why? Probably Shane Black. Forget the spectacle; it was the wit throughout the script that kept me entertained (on this point also see Jack Reacher). *SPOILERS* I enjoyed Star Trek 2 too (!) – it kept me entertained and had its own fair share of wit. But there's one thing that gets under my skin with it, just as the first one did - The constant need to reference the original franchise - Fine, I can take in-jokes or nodding winks - but it was a bit more "in your face". The name of the villain? Really? come on. He would have been no less menacing without it (Cumberbatch is ace) - The sacrifice at the end? It was too much - although the Quinto yell was better than Shatner's. What I think I am trying to say is this - IT DIDNT NEED IT. It would have worked perfectly well without it. Better even. Take Batman Begins et al - Were there any obvious nods to Tim Burton or the 60s series? (Or worse, Batman Robin (the only time i have ever left the cinema)) A reboot should wipe the slate clean. I think, actually benefits from wiping the slate clean. Do you really want me to compare Into Darkness with Wrath of Khan? We will of course get the "We dont want to upset the fans of the original" and the "bums on seats" arguments - I get that. Of course. It's a business. All I am saying is that i think it might have done just as well without it. Wow. I have gone on long enough except to say two more things: 1.I thought both films were two of the best “big blockbusters” that I’ve seen recently. 2.Could Iron 3 be the best “threequel” (how do you spell that?) of recent times? It was better than the first and far better than the second. The Fifth Ape.