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

[YJAGG]

I think anyone with an emotional connection to the series would be unhappy about them using you know who- if he was just an another bad guy it would of been ok but then the rip off going all flip floppy and then negating it with a such a heavy handed lead up those were my qualms

 

[Zuiun]

Why do so many people think Star Trek: Into Darkness was bad? Well, because the anonymous nature of the internet makes it easy for people to bash things and throw around their discontent rather loudly without having to deal with any actual consequences.

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.

For me, I'm of two minds about the film.

Did I find it entertaining? Yes. I don't feel like I wasted two hours watching it. It was fun. It was exciting. It looked great. The main characters were all excellently cast and the actors are charismatic and mesh well.

Did I find it infuriating? Yes. I feel like the writers took a lot of easy outs. I feel like they added Khan for no good reason. Actions taken by characters in the film require a lot of supposition and assumption in order to make sense (and even then often fail). Logic was cheerfully tossed out the window.

 

[Jeyl]

I can guarantee you that the new Trek producers have almost no concern over whether the new fans will watch old Trek. The market they're making these movies for is a different market than they are restoring TNG for. They have a captive audience with Trek fans, they know those blurays are going to sell well. Their concern for the films is getting people who never liked Trek before to watch it and future installments and thus far they have done very well.

But what is the longevity of it? The actors in these new Star Trek movies aren't going to do them forever and it's highly unlikely that they would be in a new television series since they're movie stars. It doesn't seem likely that they're going commit to a whole new Star Trek television series when they could be making more high profile movies. But if they do something like an animated series that follows the adventures of this rebooted TOS crew, that'd be weird because it'd most likely be a new set of actors imitating actors who were imitating the original actors. I like pretzels.

 

[Kerr Avon]

89% of audiences seem to disagree with that assessment.

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

 

[jlee562]

Nor does it make them wrong because you didn't like it. No, popularity is not the same as qualitatively good. But it's also not insignificant. It is simply objectively true that more people liked this film than disliked it.

 

[Bryancd]

Come on, 89% is a terrific number on Rotten Tomatoes and every one knows it, unless it flies in the face if their opinion, then they desperately try and discredit it.

- - - Updated - - -

Nor does it make them wrong because you didn't like it. No, popularity is not the same as qualitatively good. But it's also not insignificant. It is simply objectively true that more people liked this film than disliked it.

By a lot and it is more objective, like I said it's just math.

 

[Father]

Did I find it infuriating? Yes. I feel like the writers took a lot of easy outs. I feel like they added Khan for no good reason.

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.

 

[Jeyl]

Come on, 89% is a terrific number on Rotten Tomatoes and every one knows it, unless it flies in the face if their opinion, then they desperately try and discredit it.

But does it really mean that it's 89% good? A good chunk of a movie's reviews could just be that the reviewers thought it was an ok action flick and not all that great. Fresh, but only just. With Rotten Romatoes, there's really no clear way to distinguish a simply ok movie review to a review that thoroughly praises the film as being terrific. The two judge the film differently, but they're all fresh in RT's meters. That's not to take away from it's positive buzz, I just don't see it as "89% love it".

 

[Riceball]

I think that the reason why a lot of hard core Trek fans are having a hard time with the new Trek movies is because they still can't seem to wrap their heads around the notion that these movies aren't simply a remake of TOS but are in their own separate timeline if not their own universe given how scrambled the timeline has become. I didn't care that much about the first JJ Trek but I did enjoy the hell out of Into Darkness, not that I didn't have problems but they were more related to the film itself on its own and not Trek related issues.

 

[Bryancd]

How you perceive it is inconsequential. It makes no distinction between those who loved it from those that simply enjoyed it, it is a very simple and elegant approval rating system. Yes or no, good or bad. So although it seems difficult for you and others to accept, 89% of audience respondants and a very impressive 87% critical response I suppose makes this actually Very Good. Your attempts to equivocate this simple fact is amusing, though.

 

[CessnaDriver]

See my comment above. And as someone who was also raised on TOS reruns in the '70's and cherish it as well, I don't look at the franchise with a "Only Pure Fans Need Apply." What the hell does that even mean? Who defines what constitutes a Pure Fan? Absurd and really obnoxious.

It means what it means for me, and why I can only reject JJ Trek. Your mileage may vary.
You can call it absurd and obnoxious if you like. Fair enough. I think it's absurd and obnoxious other fans embrace the travesty.
Again if anyone is interested in why I can only reject JJ Trek. I'm happy to give my reasons.
They are however, my reasons.

 

[Father]

they still can't seem to wrap their heads around the notion that these movies aren't simply a remake of TOS but are in their own separate timeline

Which you would think would be easy to swallow since it was such a recurring theme throughout the Trek series and movies.
Having changed the timeline in the first movie gave JJ creative license to not have to adhere so tightly to the original canon and not have to explain his actions to the purists.
"Why did you change that?"
"Alternate timeline bro. Alternate timeline."

 

[SSgt Burton]

I think that the reason why a lot of hard core Trek fans are having a hard time with the new Trek movies is because they still can't seem to wrap their heads around the notion that these movies aren't simply a remake of TOS but are in their own separate timeline if not their own universe given how scrambled the timeline has become. I didn't care that much about the first JJ Trek but I did enjoy the hell out of Into Darkness, not that I didn't have problems but they were more related to the film itself on its own and not Trek related issues.

:thumbsup


Kevin

 

[Bryancd]

It means what it means for me, and why I can only reject JJ Trek. Your mileage may vary.
You can call it absurd and obnoxious if you like. Fair enough. I think it's absurd and obnoxious other fans embrace the travesty.
Again if anyone is interested in why I can only reject JJ Trek. I'm happy to give my reasons.
They are however, my reasons.

That's fine, we can carry on without you. What I am challenging is your apparent "Trek should cater to me" mentality and seriously question if that would be the best way to manage the franchise. I'll save you the time, it's not.

 

[Father]

I do think that, like some people point out, they take some short cuts and don't think through some of the plot devices and story elements as a true fan would.
If they wrote the script and the. Filtered it through some hardcore fan focus group they coud probably work out a lot of the things that even the lower level geeks would pick apart.

Of course, Lucas was the original source material for Star Wars and he still managed to ruin his own franchise so why should I expect the people making the movie for the fans to get the fans involved in order to make it more enjoyable.

Imagine if a writer/director/producer actually trolled a bunch of discussion forums like this in preproduction? Some movies might be a lot better.

 

[CessnaDriver]

I think that the reason why a lot of hard core Trek fans are having a hard time with the new Trek movies is because they still can't seem to wrap their heads around the notion that these movies aren't simply a remake of TOS but are in their own separate timeline if not their own universe given how scrambled the timeline has become. I didn't care that much about the first JJ Trek but I did enjoy the hell out of Into Darkness, not that I didn't have problems but they were more related to the film itself on its own and not Trek related issues.

Rejecting decades of canon with the alternate universe cop out is annoying but not a deal breaker.
I realize it is a "reimagining" not a direct remake. It's more then that.

 

[Riceball]

Rejecting decades of canon with the alternate universe cop out is annoying but not a deal breaker.
I realize it is a "reimagining" not a direct remake. It's more then that.

I guess there's just no pleasing some people. JJ makes his new Trek in a new timeline so that he has (largely) free reign to do what he pleases and that angers fans, conversely, you know if he set it in what's now known as the Prime Timeline fans will still be upset because of this or that violates canon.

 

[CessnaDriver]

That's fine, we can carry on without you. What I am challenging is your apparent "Trek should cater to me" mentality and seriously question if that would be the best way to manage the franchise. I'll save you the time, it's not.

The thread creator asked why. I answered.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess there's just no pleasing some people. JJ makes his new Trek in a new timeline so that he has (largely) free reign to do what he pleases and that angers fans, conversely, you know if he set it in what's now known as the Prime Timeline fans will still be upset because of this or that violates canon.

The content of Trek that is meaningful to me, the content that makes Trek special to me.... is missing in JJ Trek.
It's that simple.

I should not be berated for it.

 

[Bryancd]

I honestly had no idea some Trek fans are as pedantic as Star Wars EU fans..,

 

[Riceball]

I do think that, like some people point out, they take some short cuts and don't think through some of the plot devices and story elements as a true fan would.
If they wrote the script and the. Filtered it through some hardcore fan focus group they coud probably work out a lot of the things that even the lower level geeks would pick apart.

Of course, Lucas was the original source material for Star Wars and he still managed to ruin his own franchise so why should I expect the people making the movie for the fans to get the fans involved in order to make it more enjoyable.

Imagine if a writer/director/producer actually trolled a bunch of discussion forums like this in preproduction? Some movies might be a lot better.

The problem with that idea is what fans do you talk to? It's not like there's some sort of list of world's greatest fans of X franchise out there that these producers, directors, and screenwriters can refer to know who they're supposed to talk to, nor is there any one group of fans that's considered to be THE fans to talk to because everyone universally regards them as the ones who knows all and whose opinion everybody agrees with. In short, you consult one group of fans all you're going to get is there opinion and you'll likely end up pissing off others who don't agree with them; there's no pleasing all. I think that the best that could be done would be to interview fans at cons and/or lurk around forums like these to get an idea of what fans want but if you get too slavish to what the fans want then you run the risk of creating something that, while appealing to fans, completely alienates a general audience and thus causing the movie to flop.