Why do so many people think Star Trek: Into Darkness was bad?

[Father]

The problem with that idea is what fans do you talk to?

In terms of canon and just technical reference, there are definitely fans that know way more than the people writing these movies. They devote exponentially more time than the writers. I'm not so much talking about things that would be left to opinion. Granted, a devoted writer could just as easily do the homework themselves on trek wiki or the metric ton of other source material, but I always feel like they just don't want to devote that extra time to making sure they leave nothing to question. I could use Prometheus as a reference to this... but I won't.

 

[Zuiun]

I think this goes back to something I said earlier and a comment that followed it. JJ is a "crowd pleaser" and uses elements of TOS to appease the TOS fans. If it was some nameless "terrorist" instead of Khan would some people be screaming "why didn't this guy exist in the original timeline?"
I love that it was Khan. Lets face it, he was one of the most memorable and likeable Trek villains. How many other Trek villains were in the title of the movie/show or how many can you even name? A good number of them were good for one episode/movie and gone by the end.
Khan is an iconic villain that spans at least two generations. Why not take advantage of that.

I don't have a problem with using Khan in the film. I have a problem with HOW he was used.

I absolutely agree with the notion that these new Trek films need to cater somewhat to the "crowd pleaser" mentality. The simple fact is that Star Trek fans alone are not enough to create the kinds of box office numbers Hollywood wants to see these days. The films need to reach out to a wider audience. And Khan *is* a pop culture icon.

But Abrams brought a high performance sports car into the franchise and limited it to 25mph residential streets.

What I mean is that Khan was inconsequential to the plot as told in the film. He *could* have been just any unnamed terrorist and the story really wouldn't have changed at all. Everything that made Khan unique as a villain was missing from the film. It feels like they wrote this story about an admiral with a secret plot to militarize Starfleet and start a war with the Klingons, and then added Khan in as a neat afterthought.

I *like* the renegade admiral plot.

I *like* bringing Khan into this new franchise.

I just wish it had been done in two different stories that would have better utilized Khan. And I wish the film had paid as much attention to story substance and coherency as it did to casting, special effects, and character interaction.

As it is now, it was fun to watch. But I feel that it could have been fun AND smart.

 

[Bryancd]

Yes, I agree Khan was under utilized and somewhat wasted with the caveat that he is still alive, clearly affording him the opportunity to return in a real Wrath of him movie. Just realized that, I was wondering why keep him alive. Perhaps Bad Robot has/had a plan to build off this story.

 

[Father]

But Abrams brought a high performance sports car into the franchise and limited it to 25mph residential streets.
What I mean is that Khan was inconsequential to the plot as told in the film.

Agree to disagree I guess.

I think his role was integral to everything that happened. He was a sports car and was driving at 200mph in a few scenes.
He was the brilliant tactician and manipulated Kirk as such.
His knowledge of weapons was integral in the construction of the Vengeance.
The only thing I'm surprised they didn't exploit him for was to make super-men.

EDIT: And I like that they didn't kill him off for use later, but I doubt this cast wants to drag themselves through 6 or so sequels. Odds are they're good for one more movie before they cut the cord so they don't get typecast into their roles like TOS cast has.

 

[Riceball]

In terms of canon and just technical reference, there are definitely fans that know way more than the people writing these movies. They devote exponentially more time than the writers. I'm not so much talking about things that would be left to opinion. Granted, a devoted writer could just as easily do the homework themselves on trek wiki or the metric ton of other source material, but I always feel like they just don't want to devote that extra time to making sure they leave nothing to question. I could use Prometheus as a reference to this... but I won't.

I don't doubt that there are devoted fans with an encyclopedic knowledge of a given franchise, what I said was that there's no Yellow Book of super fans that these studios can refer to look these fans up to talk to. Even if they could I doubt that they would since most studios either A) Simply don't care, or B) Can't/won't because they're afraid of leaks or that some fan "consultant" might claim they ripped off their idea and sue them because they used as a story element something they suggested or had them change.

 

[Riceball]

I don't have a problem with using Khan in the film. I have a problem with HOW he was used.

I absolutely agree with the notion that these new Trek films need to cater somewhat to the "crowd pleaser" mentality. The simple fact is that Star Trek fans alone are not enough to create the kinds of box office numbers Hollywood wants to see these days. The films need to reach out to a wider audience. And Khan *is* a pop culture icon.

But Abrams brought a high performance sports car into the franchise and limited it to 25mph residential streets.

What I mean is that Khan was inconsequential to the plot as told in the film. He *could* have been just any unnamed terrorist and the story really wouldn't have changed at all. Everything that made Khan unique as a villain was missing from the film. It feels like they wrote this story about an admiral with a secret plot to militarize Starfleet and start a war with the Klingons, and then added Khan in as a neat afterthought.

I *like* the renegade admiral plot.

I *like* bringing Khan into this new franchise.

I just wish it had been done in two different stories that would have better utilized Khan. And I wish the film had paid as much attention to story substance and coherency as it did to casting, special effects, and character interaction.

As it is now, it was fun to watch. But I feel that it could have been fun AND smart.

Now this is a well constructed argument for what was wrong with the movie and an argument and that I can appreciate. It's far better than crying about canon and how it's not the same as the Trek they grew up with.

I'm thinking that maybe JJ screwed up in bringing Spock Prime and the whole timeline change thing into this incarnation of Trek, I wonder if some fans would be more accepting of JJ's Trek if they simply called it a complete reboot. But then again, given the general opinion on the RPF about reboots he'd probably get just as much hate for rebooting Trek as he does now for making it an alternate timeline/reality.

 

[Zuiun]

I think his role was integral to everything that happened. He was a sports car and was driving at 200mph in a few scenes.
He was the brilliant tactician and manipulated Kirk as such.
His knowledge of weapons was integral in the construction of the Vengeance.
The only thing I'm surprised they didn't exploit him for was to make super-men.

How was *KHAN* integral to the construction of the Vengeance? Nothing in the movie demonstrates that guy from 300 years in the past should be any better at designing a space ship than any of the best engineering minds in Starfleet. We are just told "oh, he helped design it."

That could have been anyone. Admiral Marcus: "I found this John Harrison guy, who is the most brilliant engineering mind I've ever met. So I blackmailed him by kidnapping and threatening his family to get him to design the Vengeance. Greater good and all that nonsense." And the plot hums along just fine without Khan.

Khan was reduced to the role of the MacGuffin, the plot device that everyone cares about and that drives the action, but that ultimately really doesn't matter -- it could be *anything* as long as it serves the purpose of motivating the characters into action.

 

[Father]

I don't doubt that there are devoted fans with an encyclopedic knowledge of a given franchise, what I said was that there's no Yellow Book of super fans that these studios can refer to look these fans up to talk to. Even if they could I doubt that they would since most studios either A) Simply don't care, or B) Can't/won't because they're afraid of leaks or that some fan "consultant" might claim they ripped off their idea and sue them because they used as a story element something they suggested or had them change.

Troll the boards... it's not hard to find the right forum and the uber-geeks and then have the writers just create a user account and bounce ideas off people and see what comes out of it. I know... it's far fetched.

 

[Bryancd]

Here here! I have said all along the inclusion if Spock Prime and the effort to bridge the 2 universes was a mistake. They should have just done a straight up reboot and started fresh.

 

[Randall Pink]

Because:

A: Everyone's tastes are different
B: Some people still have trouble accepting a "rebooted" universe
C: The new Trek is more action based than classic Trek and many loved that aspect about old Trek
D: Some people just like to bitch

^pretty much nailed it. Whether it's movies, cars, etc it doesn't matter. You will never have 100% approval on anything. Taste is subjective. Ask a room full of people if _____ is beautiful. You'll get those who say yes, those who say "she's ok" and at least one who says "not at all". For every movie goer who thinks Tom Hanks is a great actor, you can find one that thinks he's terrible.

 

[Father]

Here here! I have said all along the inclusion if Spock Prime and the effort to bridge the 2 universes was a mistake. They should have just done a straight up reboot and started fresh.

Trek has always been quick to use a Deus Ex Machina to wrap things up or move the story along. For the JJ movies, it's Spock Prime. Time travel has always been thrown around like it's nothing in previous movies to move the story along. Omnipotent beings, super-weapons that defies any previous technology that has been shown as possible.

- - - Updated - - -

^pretty much nailed it. Whether it's movies, cars, etc it doesn't matter. You will never have 100% approval on anything. Taste is subjective. Ask a room full of people if _____ is beautiful. You'll get those who say yes, those who say "she's ok" and at least one who says "not at all".

Case in point... Alice Eve. I say meh. She doesn't blow my mind. Even in her unmentionables (which, for the record, I wasn't offended by at all)

 

[Bryancd]

Yeah, they can use the time travel conceit but I think it made the first movie hard to follow and had they just done a reboot, we could avoid all these machinations trying to make the universes to work.

 

[Riceball]

How was *KHAN* integral to the construction of the Vengeance? Nothing in the movie demonstrates that guy from 300 years in the past should be any better at designing a space ship than any of the best engineering minds in Starfleet. We are just told "oh, he helped design it."

That could have been anyone. Admiral Marcus: "I found this John Harrison guy, who is the most brilliant engineering mind I've ever met. So I blackmailed him by kidnapping and threatening his family to get him to design the Vengeance. Greater good and all that nonsense." And the plot hums along just fine without Khan.

Khan was reduced to the role of the MacGuffin, the plot device that everyone cares about and that drives the action, but that ultimately really doesn't matter -- it could be *anything* as long as it serves the purpose of motivating the characters into action.

I agree with that point, I didn't quite get how someone from 300 years (no matter how much of a genius they are) could be that much help in designing a Starship or planning a war in general. About all Kahn would be really good for is planning on how to orchestrate the incidents that would lead to war and and not lead back to Adm. Marcus & Section 31. Once the war started Khan would be helpful but I'm not sure about instrumental to the war effort since his knowledge of warfare is dated to say the least and he would only be of help in the planning of the grand strategy and possibly logistics but that's about it.

 

[Shyaporn]

I love Star Trek and I thoroughly enjoyed it, why did so many people say bad things about it?

Thanks,
George

Well, the white washing of Khan is pretty atrocious. They didn't even bother to change his full name. Just awful and offensive.

Aside from that, there's the plethora of plot holes and really, really, REALLY bad science. Poorly-built and overly simplistic character motivations. Incredibly hokey and shoe-horned "homages" and references to Wrath of Khan.

In particular, the recycling of Kirk's daddy issues and emo Spock from the 2009 reboot - is Spock going to cry/get angry in every Star Trek movie now? The impact of having a Vulcan cry only hits home if we get to see a long string of episodes/movies where he ISN'T crying/getting angry.

There's plenty to dislike about this movie whether or not you're a fan of the source material, and dismissing people's negative opinions about the film as some sort of stubborn clinging to the past is spurious. Nor do I blindly take a positive Rotten Tomatoes rating as an indication of the quality of a movie.

 

[seelsa73]

Khan *is* a pop culture icon.

I wouldn't say that. If I hadn't seen TWOK before seeing this movie, I would not have known who the hell he was. And I bet you anyone who hasn't seen Trek before wouldn't know who he was either, because he's not really that prevalent outside of Trek.

 

[jlee562]

I don't see the criticism of "emo Spock" and "daddy issues" to be recycling. It's character development. Spock's emotions did the exact opposite for him in STID than ST09.

Fair enough if you think Spock is portrayed as too emotional for a Vulcan, but I would say that it's disingenuous to call this "recying." It is no more "recycling" than Nolan playing off Bruce Wayne's daddy issues for three movies.

 

[Art Andrews]

64% of people thought ******* 3D was good. That doesn't make them right.

No... but it makes 36% wrong!

 

[Art Andrews]

I am not a hard core Trek fan, but the minute I realized Kirk was going into a radiation zone... I just threw my hands up in the air... literally. There were plenty of plot holes and silliness that I suffered from minute 1 of this movie (the io9 faq perfectly summarizes my feelings on most of them), but the reverse spock/kirk death was the breaking point for me. Had ZERO emotional depth to it and seemed so lame... only to be pooped on by Kirk's sacrifice being immediately negated. Despite many flaws, the movie was a fun ride, minus that entire scene which was embarrassing.

 

[tgreco]

I am not a hard core Trek fan, but the minute I realized Kirk was going into a radiation zone... I just threw my hands up in the air... literally. There were plenty of plot holes and silliness that I suffered from minute 1 of this movie (the io9 faq perfectly summarizes my feelings on most of them), but the reverse spock/kirk death was the breaking point for me. Had ZERO emotional depth to it and seemed so lame... only to be pooped on by Kirk's sacrifice being immediately negated. Despite many flaws, the movie was a fun ride, minus that entire scene which was embarrassing.

your reaction was the same as mine

it was the second after Spock yelled "Khaaannnnnn" that I walked out

There was no way Kirk was going to be dead, and I knew how the movie was going to end.

They were so concerned with trying to throw in reference after reference to classic Trek, never bothering with the significance of those references. Yet they keep touting that this is a new universe.... Great, than do something NEW with it.

Up to that point, it was just annoying. But when they did the reboot death scene... I was done.

 

[Shyaporn]

I don't see the criticism of "emo Spock" and "daddy issues" to be recycling. It's character development. Spock's emotions did the exact opposite for him in STID than ST09.

Fair enough if you think Spock is portrayed as too emotional for a Vulcan, but I would say that it's disingenuous to call this "recying." It is no more "recycling" than Nolan playing off Bruce Wayne's daddy issues for three movies.

You say that as though Nolan's Bruce Wayne had any substantial character development over the course of the three movies.

Kirk and Spock are potentially incredibly complex characters and have many other facets the writers could have explored. They chose not to. For me, among many, many other reasons, it made the movie disappointing and boring.