Why Do So Many People Dislike "Star Trek Into Darkness"?

I just feel like I can't figure it out. And I'm bored so I want to explore it.

I've watched some of the original Star Trek TV series, more of Next Generation, and then saw both of J.J. Abrams' recent films. Into Darkness to me was a fine movie. Not AMAZING, but definitely not terrible. Chris Pine still isn't my kind of captain, Zachary Quinto still is a great Spock, Simon Peg is still an awesome Scotty, and I was surprised how much I like Benedict Cumberbatch (someone I'd never seen act before) as Khan. The story too felt alright.

So why are all the reviews for it so divisive? What I've seen is either very positive, or very negative.

And to make it clear: Next Generation is my favorite version of Star Trek, followed by the J.J. Abrams films, then everything else (haven't seen every form of Star Trek though)

 

Why would anyone say the movie is bad? I find it a great movie. And reviewers can think what they want, I don't let them decide what I like and don't.

And the fact that this is in the spam zone somewhat makes me feel like there's sarcasm hidden in there I'm not catching.

 

I dislike the JJ Abrams movies period.
Mostly because lens flare's are overused and he makes them way to emotional than sci-fi.
I think newer Doctor Who is more sci-fi than his Star Treks, he also promised Into Darkness will not be exactly like Wrath of Khan, but all he did was just reverse roles.
That's not "trying to be different" JJ, that's just playing opposite, its still the same concept in the end.
Now JJ is not a bad filmmaker but honestly, the Star Trek movies are not his best, I'm not even a Star Trek fan and I can see the problems with the newer films.
He himself even said he's not a fan and that he's more of a Star Wars nut, now I hope to GOD he makes Star Wars good and doesn't **** it up like Lucas did with the prequels.

 

Here's one review from a guy I typically agree with on movie reviews. Don't judge him solely on that one though, I'm sure you can find plenty other reviews you could agree with him on.

I don't see why that's a relevant point to bring up honestly...nobody's telling me what to think. I'm just interested in what some people have to say. I enjoy discussions so long as they're intelligent.

Why would I be sarcastic about it?

 

About to watch it for the first time.

On YouTube I'm subscribed to this one channel that's dedicated to comic books & science fiction and other geeky stuff, and from what I gather the reason some die hard Trekkies don't like it (though the main guy on the channel likes it) is because they see it as a cheap knock off of Wrath of Khan. However my former Latin teacher who was also a super mega fan said that he really liked it as well.
I would suspect that it gets some undeserved hate because of '09 since some fans are still bitter, but how much of that I don't know.

Also, apparently Into Darkness was voted worst Star Trek movie by some fans.
Here is the video where that channel discusses that. You can probably get some good insight into your question from it.

Here's another video by them you could get some more info from.

 

It's not what Star Trek oldies are used to. Abrams can make a good action film, but his content is lacking in depth of themes. Into Darkness, while not offensive to the senses, doesn't even come CLOSE to the level of thoughtfulness the original series displays, both in its commentary on our own society and attention to detail within its own. It raises complex moral and philosophical questions that Abrams' film series just isn't about.

This is how it's been put to me as a non-veteran of Star Trek, not the extent of my own opinion. I think I'd like the series better if I ever sat down with it, but for now, I'm all right with Into Darkness. It's technically sound, if somewhat forgettable, but I have a feeling it leans a little too hard on the nametag and wouldn't be entertaining on its own.

 

Hello friend Next Gen is my favorite too

side note: Anyone who thinks Into Darkness is worse than The Final Frontier is kidding themselves, sorry. Actually, from a purely cinematic standpoint I can think of seeeeveral Star Trek flicks that are worse off the top of my head. Insurrection, Nemesis, The Motion Picture, Generations... All pretty problematic films.

Anyway from what I understand, most Star Trek fans dislike J.J.'s Trek because they are first and foremost action films, undermining the philosophical and intellectual nature of the series. I get why that can be irritating; Star Trek became known for addressing current issues and making people think, even if it didn't always work out so well (ex. Next Gen's The Outcast isn't exactly well-liked; it tried to address homosexual discrimination and, in the eyes of many, failed).

The fact that Into Darkness called back elements from Wrath of Khan doesn't help its case, as Wrath of Khan is a classic and probably the most beloved Trek film ever made. So it was risky. In my opinion though, the elements they brought in from the original worked fine, and Cumberbatch was great (even if I prefer Ricardo Montalbán).

I enjoy the new Star Trek films; I think they're good movies. They just wouldn't make a good Star Trek series to me; they take a different approach. And it's not an approach most fans appreciate, because they feel it's been 'dumbed down,' and I can agree with that I suppose... But if you ask me the best Trek movies have always been either action-packed or funny, like First Contact or The Voyage Home, respectively. Past attempts to approach it differently sucked (Insurrection).

So tl;dr I think they're fine movies. But fans are upset because they feel they aren't true to the nature of the series.

 

Basically how I feel with what you guys explained is, people are right to complain about the focus on action and faster-moving plots than on deeply examined philosophical themes, but they should stop saying that the films instantly suck or are terrible just because of the shift in focus.

But something I always do when it comes to adaptations is this: if it had a different name and wasn't attached to an already established series, is it still good?

Star Trek 20009 and Into Darkness are films that survive that question. Hell, you could say Into Darkness is an even better film if you don't acknowledge the older material, even if some complaints brought up are legitimate. But its still an important question, something I have to ask myself, especially when the new version of Devil May Cry was released (still don't like that one BTW)

 

Personally, I love the new films, but I might be biased on the fact that those films are what got me into the fandom in the first place. I have since watched some of TOS, and I enjoyed those too. I almost feel like older trekkies are just a little butthurt because it's just not what they're used to.

also chris pine is a hottie hot hottie.

 

Wait, I thought it was only the game that everyone hated.

 

Why would you hate the game the game was hilarious.
I mean yea it was bad but it was bad in a hilarious way.

 

I personally like Into Darkness, it's not perfect (but then again what is?) but I found it enjoyable. It does confuse me a bit when people say it is the worst one or that it is a terrible movie, and it's not. There are certainly worse movies, Into Darkness is not one of them. I guess for most people it is because it takes a few things from Wrath of Khan. It's been a while since I've seen it but... not a whole lot has been taken really. I mean yeah Khan is the villain and there is the role reversal with Kirk and Spock but I can't really think of anything else. The plot is pretty different from Wrath of Khan, you can't really say they ripped it off besides the above mentioned role reversal.

I guess some people could be still upset about the 2009 film, which I liked at first but after looking back it has a lot of problems, so if that is the case and people's bitterness of the last film has carried over to this film then it's pretty undeserved. :\

 

Most things?

 

Ah, looking back I accidently mess up my previous post. Thank you for pointing out my incompetence.

 

Always a pleasure.

 

MovieBob is a major fanboy who hates things not being his childhood. Don't watch his review on franchise stuff. =\

 

...But I totally did that ._.

 

So I just went and asked my Trekkie parents if they liked Into Darkness and they both said they liked it more than Star Trek 2009. They said they weren't upset about any of the roles, they said there were still some flaws, but they have come to expect that in the Star Trek franchise.

When I messaged a couple of people who aren't fans of the franchise, they said they didn't like it because they were upset that they "Whitewashed" the cast.

I don't know if my parents are toying with me, or if these people are secretly fans of the franchise... either way, I don't know what to think because I have never SEEN the movie... only heard about it.

 

I've only seen the first one and it was 'kay. I always try to separate franchise from adaptation (likewise with book with movie) and try to see if it is good standing alone.

But from what I hear, it's the typical fan hatred that accumulates most of the negativity. Also the fact that JJ Abrams didn't actually like Star Trek to begin with and that the philosophical themes went over his head or something.

 

I f*cking hate it when people just assume that. They actually had like three actors lined up to play Khan, all of whom were of Indian descent, but their first choice disliked the contract and dropped out. The other two just flat out refused, so they went with Benedict Cumberbatch, whom they picked because he's a marvelous actor, not because of the color of his skin.

I wish people would do some goddamn research before they just assume sh*t.