"Star Trek: The Motion Picture" came out in 1979 and was a tremendous hit for Paramount Pictures, despite a lukewarm response from critics and some fans. But clearly people were interested in seeing "Star Trek" adventures again, so the studio commissioned a second film -- which ended up being considered the best of all the "Trek" movies to date.
Paramount wanted a second film to be made for a lot less money that the $46 million spent on the first one, which is chump change today in terms of film budgets, but back then it was a colossal figure. So the studio removed "Star Trek" creator Gene Roddenberry as producer -- thinking it was Roddenberry who had blown up the first movie's budget -- and installed Harve Bennett, a TV guy who had never seen a "Star Trek" episode at the time.

Bennett in turn hired Nicholas Meyer to direct -- like Bennett, he had never watched "Star Trek," but had a keen sense of story and character. Several scripts for the film had already been written, and Meyer was the one who pulled together elements from all the various drafts and did a final (uncredited) rewrite in 12 days to get the screenplay into shape.

After watching all 79 segments of the original series, Bennett had picked Khan from the episode "Space Seed" as the villain for "Star Trek II," thinking that a strong enemy was what the first movie had lacked. Star Ricardo Montalban expressed some concerns about returning to the character, but ultimately agreed to do it. More troublesome was Leonard Nimoy, who was reluctant play Spock again -- unless he was promised that the Vulcan would be killed off in this movie. William Shatner, meanwhile, was concerned with playing Kirk in middle age -- even though that was a central cornerstone of the movie!

"Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" began filming in November 1981 and finished in early 1982, with the movie coming out June 4 of that year (they didn't take a year or more for post-production back in those days). It was a substantial hit, earning $97 million worldwide on a budget one-quarter ($11 million) that of "Star Trek: The Motion Picture."

The movie finds Kirk and Spock forced to take the Enterprise, crewed mostly with trainees, out on a secret emergency mission to find out what has happened to Space Station Regula 1. The scientific installation is where a project called Genesis is being developed -- under the supervision of Kirk's one-time lover Dr. Carol Marcus (Bibi Besch) and their son, David (Merritt Butrick) --  which can terraform lifeless planets and make them habitable ones. It can also do the reverse if deployed on a living planet and utterly destroy all the ecosystems there.

The ship assisting the lab in its research, the USS Reliant, has accidentally stumbled upon the planet where Kirk left Khan and his surviving band of genetically enhanced supermen to carve out their own society 15 years earlier. Driven mad with grief over the death of his wife (a Starfleet officer who had actually helped Khan take over the Enterprise in "Space Seed") due to the planet's inhospitable conditions, Khan hijacks the Reliant and goes on a mission of vengeance against Kirk -- a mission that ends with Spock sacrificing his own life to save the Enterprise.

By today's standards of ultra-fast editing, pacing and visual effects, "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" might seem slow and hokey-looking. But following its more cerebral predecessor, "The Wrath of Khan" seemed much closer in spirit, pace and tone to an episode of the original series, blending action and science fiction concepts with the great character interplay that had been a hallmark of "Star Trek" on TV. Compared to today's often dumbed-down blockbusters, which race without pausing for a second from action sequence to explosion and back again (a style that, sadly, dominates the new "Star Trek Into Darkness"), "Star Trek II" is refreshing, thoughtful and most important, soulful, while still working as rousing space opera.

The story is also poignant. Kirk, always the space cowboy, is haunted by thoughts of aging and death as he oversees the humdrum training of new Starfleet recruits. By reuniting with his estranged son -- who doesn't know initially that Kirk is his father -- and also confronting Khan, the captain of the Enterprise must come to terms with unfinished business from his past while also acknowledging the uncertain future ahead. Kirk's longstanding ability to seemingly cheat death also blows up in his face when Spock dies saving the ship -- an act that serves to renew Kirk himself and provide him with a kind of spiritual rebirth.Shatner delivers perhaps his best performance as Kirk in the movie, troubled and exhausted yet still capable of thinking on his feet and taking command of any situation. Nimoy, too, is excellent, cool and stoic to the end as Spock and courageous in the face of his own demise. Montalban chews the scenery and swallows it whole as Khan (as opposed to his more seductive performance in "Space Seed"), but does provide the kind of grand, operatic antagonist that the franchise needed at that point to work on the big screen.

Why does ""Star Trek II" succeed while "Star Trek Into Darkness" fails? "Star Trek II" has a well-constructed and tightly knit story that breathes and has room for both thought and character development, while also building on relationships that have endured for more than 15 years at the time of the film's release. The new film, taking place early in the careers of the Enterprise crew, tries to jam many of those same elements into a story where the characters are not that far along in either their life experience or relationships with one another, and not given the screen time to develop that.

"Star Trek II" doesn't hold back very long before introducing Khan as the villain, and there's certainly no silly mystery surrounding his identity as there is in the latest film -- a "mystery" that will be meaningless to all but older "Trek" fans and doesn't serve to advance that story in any way. The game of cat and mouse between Khan and Kirk is clearly laid out and suspenseful without resorting to mayhem and reversals and fisticuffs every few minutes -- in fact, Kirk and Khan never meet in person in "Star Trek II," which serves to frustrate both men.

Spock's death in "Star Trek II" is a truly moving moment, even if you're not a die-hard "Trek" fan who has been following the characters for years. The staging of the same sequence in "Star Trek Into Darkness" -- reversed so that it is Kirk who dies and not Spock -- not only lacks the gravity of the original, but is completely undercut by bringing Kirk back to life literally minutes later. Yes, Spock didn't stay dead either -- but we had to wait two years and the entire length of the next film, "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock," until he was restored to close to his former self.

There are many other points on which "Star Trek II" trumps "Star Trek Into Darkness," but as we said earlier, we're also quite certain that there are many modern moviegoers who won't be able to find their way into a movie that's now 31 years old. Yet if they could, they might find it a rich experience, a terrific sci-fi film and still perhaps the best "Trek" movie yet. We're sure it will endure long after the new "Trek" envisioned by J.J. Abrams and crew is sitting in Blu-ray bins, forgettable and forgotten.

I am a hard-core Trekker. I loved and grew up with the original series and all the movies, and watched most of the later spin-offs. But I am also interested in change and evolution, and approached the 2009 "Star Trek" reboot with an open mind. I ended up enjoying it very much, thanks mainly to the fantastic cast, fast-paced energy, sense of fun and feeling of respect for the original. Creating a parallel timeline in which the new versions of the characters could play while not wiping out the original one was a clever way to preserve the old legacy and foster good will.

Related: Who's who in 'Star Trek Into Darkness'

"Star Trek Into Darkness" generates no such good will, because its flaws ultimately overwhelm the good things about the movie. It's still exciting, funny, sometimes even dazzling -- but so are fireworks displays. The emotional and intellectual core of "Star Trek Into Darkness" is hollow -- and underneath that is an attitude of condescension and superiority on the part of the filmmakers that makes the film, in the end, an insult to "Trek" fans. Here's why:

The chemistry between the new cast members was a huge factor in the 2009 "Star Trek." Everyone clicked to a surprising degree, and the performances, like the movie itself, were respectful of the originals without turning into slavish impersonations. This time around, everyone is mostly still charming -- but nagging seeds planted in the first movie have grown into larger weeds that threaten to choke off real character development and also take these iconic roles much farther away from their original interpretations than is necessary or smart.

Kirk is actively annoying in this film. He is now a starship captain, yet he seems to have almost no respect for the weight of that position. To be fair, he's young. Most of his success comes from pure blind luck and bravado. But -- to give him some benefit of the doubt -- Kirk barely has time for any significant character exploration. He loses his command, then gets it back a few minutes later. He makes a massive sacrifice near the end of the film only for that action to be canceled out and rendered pointless (more on that below). Kirk is pretty much the same guy at the end of the movie as he was at the beginning. I found myself not caring about him at all.

While Zachary Quinto is excellent as Spock, I found his character beginning to drift the most from its moorings in "Trek" mythology. Spock is a Vulcan: half-human, yes, but it's been long established that he has mastered his emotions before even setting foot in Starfleet Academy. Yet here he is crying and screaming and raging, while also participating in an underdeveloped romance with Lt. Uhura (Zoe Saldana). Sorry, but that romance felt wrong in the 2009 movie and feels really wrong here, especially when the couple start bickering in the middle of a risky and crucially important mission. The romantic angle is demeaning to Uhura, too: It reduces her to simply being Spock's girlfriend this time out.

Putting Uhura at Spock's side also wrecks the original trinity of Kirk, Spock and Dr. McCoy (Karl Urban), which is a shame on two counts. First, it removes the classic balance of logic and emotion embodied by Spock and McCoy, respectively, that always provided Kirk with two sides to every command decision. Second, it reduces Urban -- who is once again terrific and manages to channel the late, great DeForest Kelley in an eerily magical way -- to little more than a one-liner machine. He also does some really dumb science later on as well -- very un-Bones-like.

As for the rest of the command crew, Simon Pegg is better this time as Scotty and gets more to do, but the two characters who get the really short end of the phaser are Chekov (Anton Yelchin) and Sulu (John Cho). The helmsman has one outstanding scene when he's temporarily in command of the Enterprise and we see that steely resolve that will one day get him his own ship. Chekov gets to play chief engineer for a while but tends to get lost in the shuffle.

Did I like anything about "Star Trek Into Darkness"? Sure. The opening Nibiru sequence had a great sense of adventure (even if we still don't understand why the Enterprise was submerged underwater -- how is that supposed to hide the ship from the native species when a gigantic vessel rising out of the ocean would be pretty damn noticeable?). I felt a thrill of excitement during the action set pieces and thought the special effects and 3-D conversion were sharply executed. Michael Giacchino's stirring score did a lot to create emotion when there was none on the screen. The humor and generally light tone remained invigorating.

But all that doesn't stop "Star Trek Into Darkness" from being fatally flawed, thanks to a lazy, terrible script and a misconceived bad guy. We'll start with him first: Benedict Cumberbatch is one of the best actors around right now, as his work on the BBC's "Sherlock" and films like "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" proves. But his much-hyped performance is underwhelming, mainly because he's either standing there spitting out exposition or just punching people. His role is underwritten and misunderstood by the screenwriters, and  there's not much to it beyond the solemn intonations and glares you've seen in the trailers -- despite all the marketing focusing on him.

Yes, the rumors were true: Cumberbatch is playing genetically engineered superman Khan Noonien Singh, first introduced in the original series episode "Space Seed" and revisited in the 1982 film  "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan," essayed unforgettably in both by Ricardo Montalban. We discover his true identity halfway through the film, before which he's known as John Harrison. But having Khan in this movie is a stupid and pointless choice by screenwriters Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof. Giving this pale British guy the same name as the original Indian tyrant, while dispensing in five minutes with most of the history that made Khan so significant, just diminishes the character for hard-core Trekkers and will mean absolutely nothing to casual viewers. It fails miserably as good storytelling and fan service.

To make matters worse, Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof re-enact the famous "Star Trek II" scene in which Spock sacrifices his life to save the Enterprise -- only this time it's Kirk dying inside the radiation chamber while Spock sits outside the glass door. But Kirk is only dead for about 10 minutes before McCoy figures out that he can use Khan's superhuman blood to bring him back to life (a development heavily foreshadowed earlier in the movie). So Kirk's sacrifice means nothing because he comes back to life almost before the echoes of Spock's contrived "KHAAAAANNNN!" scream (which is out of context and out of character) have barely faded. There's no investment in the relationship, whereas when Spock died in "Star Trek II," you felt the weight of 16-plus years of friendship. This new Kirk and Spock barely know each other a year in the rebooted timeline.

All the problems here point back to the script, a supremely terrible piece of writing. But why would anyone expect greatness from a team whose combined credits include the "Transformers" movies, "Cowboys & Aliens" and "Prometheus"?  Aside from the careless rehashing of "Star Trek II" -- along with plot points from "Star Trek III," "Star Trek VI" and even "Star Trek: Nemesis" -- there are huge story holes that sit there waiting to be discovered like the giant new warship that Adm. Marcus (Peter Weller) has parked behind Jupiter (one of the plot holes itself, by the way).

For instance, if Khan's blood can bring people back to life, does that mean death has been cured? Why go on an extended climactic chase after Khan for said blood when there are 72 of his superman crewmates sitting frozen on the Enterprise just a few hundred feet away from where Kirk's body is going stiff? Why play for a little while with the idea of Kirk and Khan teaming up to fight the head of Starfleet and second villain, Adm. Marcus (Peter Weller) -- an interesting twist that might have somewhat salvaged the Khan gambit -- only to turn him back into a generic bad guy for a contrived, incoherent third act?

The admiral's motivation for waking Khan up to help build new weapons -- an irresponsible act to begin with -- remains muddled. Does he want to start a war with the Klingons? Does he want to militarize Starfleet? Not that the militarization of Starfleet isn't a viable topic -- it has been touched on throughout "Trek" history. But so soon in this timeline? Both of Abrams' "Star Trek" movies are revenge thrillers. What happened to seeking out new life and new civilizations? The original "Star Trek" was not without many outright bad episodes/movies, but still managed at its best to create suspense, danger and excitement without setting up Joker-like villains, and while still carrying a sense of wonder about the universe. That's gone now.

While J.J. Abrams does a terrific technical job directing "Star Trek Into Darkness," he appears to have thought that he needed to destroy "Star Trek" in order to save it. With the emphasis on mindless action, characters who barely stop to die let alone think, and hopelessly convoluted story "twists," the movie out in theaters now works as disposable summer entertainment in a sci-fi setting. But is it "Star Trek"? As Spock himself would say, "Negative."