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

[Jedi-72]

89% of audiences seem to disagree with that assessment.

While I think the movie was very well done, it's wise not to put much stock into what the lemmings think. Popularity does not automatically equate to quality. The average person is lucky to leave their house every day with their underwear actually UNDER their pants rather than OVER them. If something appeals to the masses, it's generally garbage. But, every once in a while, something of quality manages to slip through their cognitive defenses and power the light bulb for a few moment until the next shiny object comes along to distract them. I think this is one of those instances.

 

[jlee562]

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.

Like I said, if you don't like the way the characters are portrayed, fair enough. But I don't see how they handled the characters in STID as "recycling," given that Spock's emotions were played for two different payoffs. The two different films portrayed two different sides of Spock's emotions. I don't see that as "recycling." I interpreted that as character development.

 

[Wes R]

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*

There's alot to this. I don't mind the JJ Trek stuff but it's never going to be as good as the first 3 trek films. I also feel the strong distain folks have for the JJ Trek for Transformers because like JJ Bay never watched the show, saw the comic or anything.

 

[ghostryder]

Star Trek Into Darkness writer argued against the use of Cumberbatch's character - Nerd Reactor

 

[Father]

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.

If I remember right the whole idea was that Starfleet no longer has anyone in its ranks that had the warrior mindset. It's been operating under peace for so long it needed someone with the same brutal mindset as the Klingons.
In terms of technical knowledge, I don't know how much things had advanced one the JJ-verse that would make him antiquated.

Emo Spock? Man you guys are brutal.
I think of it in terms of getting as much in as quickly as possible while still telling a decent story. By as quickly as possible I mean that I think the studio/JJ knows they're not going to get the same long term commitment from this crew as they did from TOS's cast. And they don't have a TV series as a building block. So they have to harvest what the can from the old material, freshen it up, mix in some pink slime for flavor and texture and churn it out to the new fan base.

I didn't mind Kirk and the radiation thing. That's how everything played out, how to show he's grown and learned sacrifice and consequences for his actions.
Spock's "KAAAAAHN" was funny to me. It was another perfect example of JJ throwing in bits from the original for nostalgia and an attempt to appease fans. I think it worked. It certainly wasnt enough to make me leave the theater 10 minutes before the movie ended.

it's never going to be as good as the first 3 trek films.

Where do you start counting? Because ST: SMP was crap. Harder to watch than 2001: A Space Odyssey.

 

[tgreco]

It was another perfect example of JJ throwing in bits from the original for nostalgia and an attempt to appease fans. I think it worked. It certainly wasnt enough to make me leave the theater 10 minutes before the movie ended..

reference doesn't equal substance

especially when they are splashed all over the place with a "Hey Star Trek fans!!! Look. See... We get it!" when they obviously don't


perfect example

The Prime Directive is violated no less than 6 times in the opening sequence, and the very mission itself is a violation of the Prime Directive.

So if they're going to reference it, perhaps they should
1. Demonstrate how the Prime Directive is different in this universe
or
2. Demonstrate that this situation calls for a violation of the Prime Directive (rare minerals, strategic importance to the Federation, etc.)
or
3. Explain why the Prime Directive doesn't apply (a lost group of humans that got marooned, and therefore the Prime Directive doesn't apply )

they forced a silly situation, and the only violation that is referenced is the Primitives saw the Enterprise
(and I won't go into a Starship is NOT a submarine)
well, they also saw the crew members (McCoy and Kirk)
they also saw the shuttle (Uhura, Sulu, and Spock)
they also stopped the volcanic eruption (which interfered with the natural development of the primitives)

if they wanted to stop the planet from being destroyed, (which is a violation of the Prime Directive) they could have stayed in a geosynchronous orbit, and just beamed the bomb down, or Spock and the bomb down, because then they could have maintained line of site, and never been seen by the Primitives, minimizing contamination

but then they make a big deal about violating the Prime Directive....

So you see, they reference it... but I doubt they ever actually bothered to find out what it is, or watched Trek episodes where it was applied.

and they did this throughout the movie...
reference after reference... without understanding the substance
if they want to create a New universe... than create a new one... having no references to the prime universe would have made it better. Made it stand alone.

They use it as a crutch.

 

[Capn_Jack_Savvy]

Any movie or series that has to start with an alteration to the space-time-continuum is destined for something other than success.

 

[jlee562]

Any movie or series that has to start with an alteration to the space-time-continuum is destined for something other than success.

Yeah, that whole Back to the Future thing was horrible.

And yes, Kirk violated the Prime directive in the opening scene. That was kind of the point of the entire sequence.

 

[Father]

I'm not going to argue semantics on the prime directive because I think violating it was something that was done pretty often on TOS as well.

I agree that they don't commit enough time to knowing the source material beyond throwing in highlight references into key moments of the JJ movies.

 

[Gimpdiggity]

This is a cop out and implies that people don't have a right to their own opinions unless they happen to conform with one standard or another.

The fact is, debates about film have been a part of American culture since the beginning. Except now the debate occurs in places like this instead of in a diner at 2am.

Sure, there is a certain element of people feeding off of the energy of others to escalate the emotion, but still, I'd wager that a lot of the motivation for voicing discontent comes less from a "lack of having to deal with consequences" and more from a "wanting to legitimize their thoughts" standpoint. It's the personal insults against those that disagree with them that come more from the "lack of consequences" side of things -- few people would be as rude to each other in person, even in the midst of completely opposite viewpoints about the film.

I fail to see how my comment implied that everyone isn't entitled to their own opinion. If that's how you took it, then I'm sorry that it confused you because that's not at all how it was intended to be taken.

I merely meant that negative reviews on the internet seem to garner more attention than positive reviews do. Whether that attention is for the negative reivew or against it, the negative review will be met with much more discussion than one that is positive. I'm not sure whether it's just my work computer or if Rottentomatoes no longer allows it, but I seem to remember seeing "comments" for the negative reviews FAR outnumbering "comments" for the positive reviews of films from the past. The negative reviews simply seem to garner more attention, especially if it's a negative review that seems to go somewhat against the grain. Basically, if something seems to be getting "good" comments from a majority of people, then the ones that are "bad" comments stick out even more so.

The anonymous nature of the internet also brings out a lot of "you're stupid" and "this movie sucked" type of comments, which you touched on in your reply...which is more to the point of my mentioning that nature of the internet in the first place.

Basically, I think that the internet brings to light a lot more "negative" opinions of things than other mediums do, regarding pretty much everything, and the fact that they seem to highlight, if you will, the negative opinions, that can make it seem like more people disliked something than actually did dislike it. Just my opinion.

 

[tgreco]

I'm not going to argue semantics on the prime directive because I think violating it was something that was done pretty often on TOS as well.

Oh, definitely. But at least in each instance that it happened, they addressed it. Why it was a proper course of action, or why it did or didn't apply. In one instance Kirk loses his memory and is worshiped as a god.

In another, Kirk says that they can't interfere with the development of a society because it's development has been arrested, and they destroy the computer that the society had become dependant on.

So yes, there were multiple violations of the Prime Directive, but there was always an explanation. It was treated with some reverence.

Like I said.. reference without substance. They throw the phrase "Prime Directive" around, but other than the dashed off reference, they never bother with it. But Kirk got demoted for it... or was it because he filed a false report?
Oh wait... he actually didn't get anything because they magically made all consequences of that action go away in 10 minutes... Just like his death.

Nothing in nu-Trek has any gravity... not even the death of a main character, because you know it's all going to be fixed in the next 10 minutes, and then they'll move on to the next non-situation.

And the solutions aren't even clever or well thought out, but if they can shoe horn a classic Trek reference in... they will

 

[Shyaporn]

Nothing in nu-Trek has any gravity...

Not even gravity has any gravity in nu-Trek...

 

[laserpistol76]

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

That pretty much sums it up. As for it being a reboot, it's an alternate universe so anything can happen.

 

[niennumb1]

^^^^^^ EXACTLY. Michael Bergeron's post is spot on to my thinking on this.

 

[Father]

They explained their reasons for violating the PD but they never had to answer for it because they werent back on Earth standing on the carpet at the end of every episode. Just because they found a way to justify their actions doesn't mean the violation wasnt still a violation. In that regard, a lot of the series was flawed because their exploration almost always put them in a situation where they were almost guaranteed to be thrown into a situation that would force them to violate it. That's partly the humanity of the show and the characters and partly, in my opinion, just inconsistent storytelling.


I chalk the other part up to limited time to get as much action, story, and character development as they can fit into a movie length of 1.5-2 hours. I'm sure if they were guaranteed to have a green light for a third movie and everyone was on board they might have let Kirk stay dead to be resurrected in the third movie. Ultimately would it matter? Whether his death was real and short or retconned to bridge two series generations... Does it matter if it was fun to watch?

 

[takevin]

Before seeing the movie, going by the trailers all i saw was all action fluff and thought it was going to suck, but after seeing the movie I really enjoyed it!

 

[Father]

Before seeing the movie, going by the trailers all i saw was all action fluff and thought it was going to suck, but after seeing the movie I really enjoyed it!

I think they kind of blew their load in the trailers... showing just about every action sequence. But the way they arrange everything in the trailer it makes it look like it'll play out a lot different than what I was expecting.
I was hoping for a little more Khan and wasnt expecting the corrupt Admiral twist but it didn't make it bad. Just that the trailers almost mislead your expectations.

 

[Riceball]

Like I said.. reference without substance. They throw the phrase "Prime Directive" around, but other than the dashed off reference, they never bother with it. But Kirk got demoted for it... or was it because he filed a false report?

It was both, he got busted for violating the Prime Directive then filing a false report about it.

As for explaining the Prime Directive, there's only so much that can be done in a 2 hour movie without slowing the pace way down and/or dragging out a scene for too long. Sort of like of Jeyl's complaint about Mudd's shuttle being used but never being shown acquired, they had a throwaway line because there's no need to show the "Mudd Incident" because it has no bearing on the movie since it's all about having the shuttle, not the acquisition of it. Likewise with Kirk getting busted, it's not really about the Prime Directive, it's merely to give a reason for Kirk being busted not about the Prime Directive itself.

 

[Jeyl]

Star Trek Into Darkness writer argued against the use of Cumberbatch's character - Nerd Reactor

In short, it's all a back and forth discussion on "It's Star Trek" and "It's not Star Trek", boiling down to total randomness and praising each other for it. The term "Too many chefs in one kitchen" has never ringed more true than it has here.

 

[Bryancd]

Before seeing the movie, going by the trailers all i saw was all action fluff and thought it was going to suck, but after seeing the movie I really enjoyed it!

How is that possible even possible after reading some of the comments in this thread?! Surely you must be a member of the vast unwashed of uneducated, parochial, non-TOS uber fans who have impossibly gleaned any enjoyment out of this film! You, sir, are not welcome in the STAR TREK community any longer, please hand in your Trekkie card immediately.