Why do so many people think Star Trek: Into Darkness was bad?
- Thread starter GBA
- Start date
heiro5
Active Member
Because the internet loves to whinge and moan, and is much better at amplifying the bad than the good.
And the deeper one's fandom, the more A) one's sense of ownership over what should or shouldn't be valid story and B) one's feeling of dismay and outrage over A not being adhered to...
The movie totally rocked. Can't wait to see it again, endlessly, on cable. I would have very much liked to see a ST3 in this timeline, that maybe finally did get to a "search and explore" storyline dealing with interfacing with new cultures, but through this lens. Of course we won't get that now, and possibly not even had this team stayed on board for another installment.
Short answer: because the internet loves to hate.
And the deeper one's fandom, the more A) one's sense of ownership over what should or shouldn't be valid story and B) one's feeling of dismay and outrage over A not being adhered to...
The movie totally rocked. Can't wait to see it again, endlessly, on cable. I would have very much liked to see a ST3 in this timeline, that maybe finally did get to a "search and explore" storyline dealing with interfacing with new cultures, but through this lens. Of course we won't get that now, and possibly not even had this team stayed on board for another installment.
Short answer: because the internet loves to hate.
Kerr Avon
Master Member
Simple.
JJ Abrams never liked or watched Star Trek, by his own admission. He set out to reboot a series and make it his own, to do whatever he wanted and take the series in a new direction. By rebooting it, he essentially said that the entire TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager (I can live with that one) never happened and just took a big steaming dump on them. Then he made completely nonsensical decisions involving plot development and just really bad writing to invent a character "Nero" that was just not entertaining. A character that had the ability to travel in time before his planet was destroyed and used it to not stop his world from being destroyed, but to destroy other planets. Talk about pathetically huge plot holes. You could have driven the Nar'ada through it. Sideways. Well we had a character, Jim T Kirk, who went from being an educated, strong man to being a whiney loser criminal drop out who got pulled into Starfleet (talk about low standards) and then got kicked out because he was being the jerk that Abrams turned Kirk into. Then, miraculously, he somehow gets involved with Starfleet again and saves Earth. Now, at that point, you put him back in Starfleet Academy. No, because Abrams is a moron, he had the wash out Starfleet cadet instantly promoted to Captain. NO ORGANIZATION WOULD EVER WORK LIKE THAT. That's the end of the first movie. Second one, the wash out cadet who should have never been a Captain, gets demoted and sent back to the Academy. Five minutes later he's a Captain again. Really. Like 5 minutes later. I thought they learned their lesson, but in the entire organization of Starfleet, apparently no one else has any experience or skills that would have made him or her a superior choice for being Captain. All through the entire development of this second tragedy, Abrams INSISTED that this new character wasn't Khan. He swore up and down he wasn't Khan. Half way through the movie, you find out he's Khan. Abrams, who had made every effort to make Star Trek new and his own thing, just ended up stealing bits of better written and better developed movies and TV shows and just demonstrated what an intolerable hack he was. He should never, ever, again work in someone else's stuff. Let him make his own things, but don't let him touch any established series.
And then we're getting Star Wars from this guy. *sigh*
JJ Abrams never liked or watched Star Trek, by his own admission. He set out to reboot a series and make it his own, to do whatever he wanted and take the series in a new direction. By rebooting it, he essentially said that the entire TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager (I can live with that one) never happened and just took a big steaming dump on them. Then he made completely nonsensical decisions involving plot development and just really bad writing to invent a character "Nero" that was just not entertaining. A character that had the ability to travel in time before his planet was destroyed and used it to not stop his world from being destroyed, but to destroy other planets. Talk about pathetically huge plot holes. You could have driven the Nar'ada through it. Sideways. Well we had a character, Jim T Kirk, who went from being an educated, strong man to being a whiney loser criminal drop out who got pulled into Starfleet (talk about low standards) and then got kicked out because he was being the jerk that Abrams turned Kirk into. Then, miraculously, he somehow gets involved with Starfleet again and saves Earth. Now, at that point, you put him back in Starfleet Academy. No, because Abrams is a moron, he had the wash out Starfleet cadet instantly promoted to Captain. NO ORGANIZATION WOULD EVER WORK LIKE THAT. That's the end of the first movie. Second one, the wash out cadet who should have never been a Captain, gets demoted and sent back to the Academy. Five minutes later he's a Captain again. Really. Like 5 minutes later. I thought they learned their lesson, but in the entire organization of Starfleet, apparently no one else has any experience or skills that would have made him or her a superior choice for being Captain. All through the entire development of this second tragedy, Abrams INSISTED that this new character wasn't Khan. He swore up and down he wasn't Khan. Half way through the movie, you find out he's Khan. Abrams, who had made every effort to make Star Trek new and his own thing, just ended up stealing bits of better written and better developed movies and TV shows and just demonstrated what an intolerable hack he was. He should never, ever, again work in someone else's stuff. Let him make his own things, but don't let him touch any established series.
And then we're getting Star Wars from this guy. *sigh*
jlee562
Sr Member
"By rebooting it, he essentially said that the entire TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager (I can live with that one) never happened and just took a big steaming dump on them."
I don't get this leap for two reasons.
1) ST09 flat out says that it's an "alternate reality." Being that it is an alternate reality, it has to be alternate to something, which would be the "Prime" reality.
2) It's a fictional universe for crying out loud!
Nobody complains that the X-Men comic books "didn't happen" when the X-Men movie came out and changed who comprised the 'original' X-Men. Nobody complained that it was "[taking] a big steaming dump" on decades of cannon. Where was Ant-Man in the Avengers movie?!?!?! DANG YOU JOSS WHEDON FOR TAKING A DUMP ON THE AVENGERS!!!!!!!!!!
Again, not saying that you have to like JJ Trek if you really feel that its not your cup of tea. But let's be honest here, the 'outrage' over Star Trek is unique over other film franchises, for better or worse.
I don't get this leap for two reasons.
1) ST09 flat out says that it's an "alternate reality." Being that it is an alternate reality, it has to be alternate to something, which would be the "Prime" reality.
2) It's a fictional universe for crying out loud!
Nobody complains that the X-Men comic books "didn't happen" when the X-Men movie came out and changed who comprised the 'original' X-Men. Nobody complained that it was "[taking] a big steaming dump" on decades of cannon. Where was Ant-Man in the Avengers movie?!?!?! DANG YOU JOSS WHEDON FOR TAKING A DUMP ON THE AVENGERS!!!!!!!!!!
Again, not saying that you have to like JJ Trek if you really feel that its not your cup of tea. But let's be honest here, the 'outrage' over Star Trek is unique over other film franchises, for better or worse.
Sci fi site io9.com deconstructed it pretty well I think. Spoilers.
http://io9.com/star-trek-into-dumbness-507058729
http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness-the-spoiler-faq-508927844
"Aggressively, tragically stupid." Yeah I can get behind that.
- Karl
http://io9.com/star-trek-into-dumbness-507058729
http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness-the-spoiler-faq-508927844
"Aggressively, tragically stupid." Yeah I can get behind that.
- Karl
"JJ Abrams never liked or watched Star Trek, by his own admission. He set out to reboot a series and make it his own, to do whatever he wanted and take the series in a new direction."
Ironic, this statement is also true of Nick Meyer. He was not a Trek fan. He made a more militaristic Trek with more action.
Ironic, this statement is also true of Nick Meyer. He was not a Trek fan. He made a more militaristic Trek with more action.
I should point out that Nick Meyer and Harve Bennett may have not known anything about Star Trek, but they decided to LEARN. They screened every episode, and reverse engineered what made the show tick. They actually sussed out why people liked the thing in the first place.
Contrast this to Abrams/Orci/Kurtzmann, who seem to have made a simple calculation: most people aren't Trekkies, so we make a film that "most people" would find entertaining in a lowest-common-denominator sort of way. Broad appeal for the Transformers crowd. Screw anybody who takes it seriously.
k
Contrast this to Abrams/Orci/Kurtzmann, who seem to have made a simple calculation: most people aren't Trekkies, so we make a film that "most people" would find entertaining in a lowest-common-denominator sort of way. Broad appeal for the Transformers crowd. Screw anybody who takes it seriously.
k
third3ye
Sr Member
I thought STID was average. I'm in the camp where I thought the Abrams reboot had a nice fresh take on it. In spirit of full disclosure I've never been a Trekkie as I enjoyed SW more, but I did follow TNG and some of its movies, First Contact being my favorite. For me, STID is actually a step down from ST09. Kerr Avon covered a lot of the complaints from a fan's standpoint so I'll stick to the more casual moviewatcher's standpoint.
My beef with STID:
-In a large part unoriginal with some blatant ripoffs from other movies; anyone who's seen ST2 and Avengers knows this.
-Whatever was fresh in ST09 has lost its appeal in STID.
-Zero character development across the board, even less so than the attempts in ST09. For a franchise like ST where the crew itself is supposed to be a large part of the movie's appeal, not a winning combo.
-Minor beef: the Alice Eve scene was completely out of place. Yeah, I'm a dude, and I said it. Fanboys and testosterone-laden audience aside, everyone else wasn't very keen on that scene and it was controversial enough that Lindelof felt compelled to apologize for it.
Before the flaming starts, again let me reiterate - I didn't hate the film, I just thought it was ok. Not something I'd watch again, maybe some parts of it if it's showing on TV.
My beef with STID:
-In a large part unoriginal with some blatant ripoffs from other movies; anyone who's seen ST2 and Avengers knows this.
-Whatever was fresh in ST09 has lost its appeal in STID.
-Zero character development across the board, even less so than the attempts in ST09. For a franchise like ST where the crew itself is supposed to be a large part of the movie's appeal, not a winning combo.
-Minor beef: the Alice Eve scene was completely out of place. Yeah, I'm a dude, and I said it. Fanboys and testosterone-laden audience aside, everyone else wasn't very keen on that scene and it was controversial enough that Lindelof felt compelled to apologize for it.
Before the flaming starts, again let me reiterate - I didn't hate the film, I just thought it was ok. Not something I'd watch again, maybe some parts of it if it's showing on TV.
Father
Sr Member
I disagree with no character development.
We see Kirk receive a dose of humility and watch him growing into his position as a you g captain accepting responsibility for his actions, sacrificing himself for his crew (family), and learning to think things through.
Same with Spock. Accepting his human side and using the strengths of both his races to work out problems. Realizing how much his friendship with Kirk and his relationship with Uhura.
Sulu even gets a little taste. Scotty and Chekov seem to be supporting roles more than anything else. Bones just a step above them.
When I think back to TOS its not like they really "developed" the characters then. How much backstory was fleshed out back then.
Yes they rehashed a story and put a different spin (in my opinion a better one than the original with more depth).
It also shows that the Federation isn't without corruption and the future Earth isn't without some moral ambiguity.
Not flaming you or anyone else... I've always enjoyed Trek, in some ways as much as SW but I'm by no means a staunch purist that thinks the original is a flawless piece of fiction and anything else is pale carbon copy.
We see Kirk receive a dose of humility and watch him growing into his position as a you g captain accepting responsibility for his actions, sacrificing himself for his crew (family), and learning to think things through.
Same with Spock. Accepting his human side and using the strengths of both his races to work out problems. Realizing how much his friendship with Kirk and his relationship with Uhura.
Sulu even gets a little taste. Scotty and Chekov seem to be supporting roles more than anything else. Bones just a step above them.
When I think back to TOS its not like they really "developed" the characters then. How much backstory was fleshed out back then.
Yes they rehashed a story and put a different spin (in my opinion a better one than the original with more depth).
It also shows that the Federation isn't without corruption and the future Earth isn't without some moral ambiguity.
Not flaming you or anyone else... I've always enjoyed Trek, in some ways as much as SW but I'm by no means a staunch purist that thinks the original is a flawless piece of fiction and anything else is pale carbon copy.
I thought it was a fun action film, but as a Trek film, I didn't think it was that great. Seemed very derivative to me. I don't understand the point of rebooting a franchise to make it take place in a different universe, then have all the same old stuff happen all over again. This coming from someone who has never really enjoyed the TOS, but liked all the films and was a diehard TNG fan.
jlee562
Sr Member
I too would take issue with the "no character development" thing. The io9 article talks about Kirk's "failing upwards" trajectory, and sure, I'll grant that the series' portrayal of Kirk's rapid fire promotion->demotion->promotion leaves a bit to be desired, but the lesson for Kirk in the second film is not the same as the first.
Remember that Kirk's death in Into Darkness has to be put into the context of the Kobayashi Maru. Even if we're only looking at JJ's alternate universe (and not relying on Kirk's comments in TWOK about facing certain death to Saavik, which REALLY resonates with Into Darkness), Kirk sacrifices himself to save the the crew and ship (and possible civilian casualties on landing). This is a maturation of the character which rigged the Kobayashi Maru simulation.
Sulu went from the guy who bungled the Enterprise's first jump to warp speed, to a guy who was confident and assertive as acting Captain.
Scotty's portrayal was much less one dimensional in the second film as well.
KhalDrogo, what specifically are you saying is "same old stuff?"
I think people really get wrapped up too much in Khan. But the plot is really NOT like Wrath of Khan. Khan's principle goal in that movie was revenge against Kirk for marooning him on Ceti Alpha V. But in Into Darkness, his motivation is to rescue his crew; Khan is always operating on his own agenda, unbeknownst to Adm. Marcus, although Kirk seems to figure it out ("I think he's using us..." or whatever that line was, I don't remember verbatim).
Yes, Kirk dying was a mirror to Spock dying in TWOK, but other than that, I can't really think of any specific that was already done in the TOS films aside from broad generalities.
Remember that Kirk's death in Into Darkness has to be put into the context of the Kobayashi Maru. Even if we're only looking at JJ's alternate universe (and not relying on Kirk's comments in TWOK about facing certain death to Saavik, which REALLY resonates with Into Darkness), Kirk sacrifices himself to save the the crew and ship (and possible civilian casualties on landing). This is a maturation of the character which rigged the Kobayashi Maru simulation.
Sulu went from the guy who bungled the Enterprise's first jump to warp speed, to a guy who was confident and assertive as acting Captain.
Scotty's portrayal was much less one dimensional in the second film as well.
KhalDrogo, what specifically are you saying is "same old stuff?"
I think people really get wrapped up too much in Khan. But the plot is really NOT like Wrath of Khan. Khan's principle goal in that movie was revenge against Kirk for marooning him on Ceti Alpha V. But in Into Darkness, his motivation is to rescue his crew; Khan is always operating on his own agenda, unbeknownst to Adm. Marcus, although Kirk seems to figure it out ("I think he's using us..." or whatever that line was, I don't remember verbatim).
Yes, Kirk dying was a mirror to Spock dying in TWOK, but other than that, I can't really think of any specific that was already done in the TOS films aside from broad generalities.
Satxer
Sr Member
I figured that all the Trekkies were just upset that they had the Enterprise flying in atmospheric conditions...
Sorry, but I liked it. I like the old movies, but I like the newer ones because they are more...well action packed. These two movies are helping me have faith in the new Star Wars movies. Go JJ!
Sorry, but I liked it. I like the old movies, but I like the newer ones because they are more...well action packed. These two movies are helping me have faith in the new Star Wars movies. Go JJ!
Father
Sr Member
Now... that might be pushing it.
While I like all of the "nods" and acknowledgements in the JJ movies, they almost feel like forced fan appeasement. They're always a little more than subtle, like conveniently having a Tribble laying around. The TOS uniform style with all the tiny little Starfleet symbols is almost too much for me but I've accepted it. I much more prefer when they're wearing the plain black shirts. McCoy's analogies.
I hope to God he doesn't overdo it like that with the Star Wars movies.
Because Abrams chose to re-imagine TOS, he set a standard with me. TOS is literally some of the first imagery of story telling I ever saw over forty years ago. It's part of me. How you handle that means certain things in my view.
Abrams violates way too much of what I know as Trek in that regard, both the core principals, message and the characters themselves. That simple.
Abrams is a crowd pleaser, not a thinker as Roddenberry was.
Abrams violates way too much of what I know as Trek in that regard, both the core principals, message and the characters themselves. That simple.
Abrams is a crowd pleaser, not a thinker as Roddenberry was.
