I don't think it's just the "extreme vocal internet minority". Go to Rotten Tomatoes and read the positive reviews. Most of them, while praising the movie ding the writers for rehashing old stuff.
What was it they rehashed, though? Was TWOK a rehash of "Space Seed"? Of course, not. STiD is not a rehash of TWOK. If anything, it turns "Space Seed" on its ear, and does something new with it.
That said, I'm not talking the people who generally liked it, but had a few complaints, I'm talking the people Kurtzman is trying address: the rabid "fans" who push against the writers like they are evil incarnate; or the ones that slam J.J. and insult him in the worst way, or how they blast fans of the movie like they're intellectually stunted, or inferior. Those "fans" aren't healthy for any fandom, though they do exist in every fandom. I don't think Kurtzman or Orci should give them any airtime at all. They will hate him anyway, they will vehemently disagree with him anyway. To give them recognition is to give them validity in their own minds, and that will just make it worse.
J. Allen wrote:
Honestly, he shouldn't have to defend anything...
Sad. But true...
I wish it weren't that way, but what can you do? Some people hate just to hate.
Is it well liked by most traditional Star Trek fans? I keep hearing that a lot of "trekkies" (or "trekkers" or whatever) slammed it for its abundance of action and non-traditional approach.
I have yet to see Into Darkness. I loved the 2009 movie and I'm a fan of the series and all of the movies (except Search for Spock and Nemesis). Going to the blind buy the Blu-ray copy soon.
Now, that question can get sticky. What is a "traditional" fan? Is it someone who loves the original series? Is it someone who was a Trek fan from the beginning of the original show's run? What marks a "traditional" fan differently than a "non-traditional" fan, whatever that may also be?
Star Trek has always been filled with action. Look at First Contact
, one of the most beloved Trek movies in the past 20 years. The Wrath of Khan
was packed with action! Vengeance! Destruction! Old enemies meet to face off against one another in a battle of firepower among the stars!
Yes, STiD has action, almost at a frenetic pace, but that can be workable, so long as the director is capable, and J.J. is more than capable of making it work. I felt plenty of emotional, and intellectual arguments being made throughout the movie. That J.J. was able to cram so much into two hours and 12 minutes is nothing short of amazing to me. Look at TMP, a film of lethargic pacing. It did in 3 hours what could have been done in 15 minutes. It's considered cerebral, high concept and, whether you agree with that or not, boring. Hell, people called it The Motionless Picture
For what it's worth, I enjoy TMP, but it lacks significant character moments (save for the end), and the pacing is glacial. It's a wonderful story of visuals, and high concept ideas, but the execution isn't the best, and I say that as a devotee of Robert Wise's work.
With that in mind, would I go into TMP and say "Robert Wise was an idiot! He killed the franchise! Only a moron would like TMP!" Of course not! I might talk about the pacing, I may remark how I do or do not like some moments in the film, but I'm there to discuss the film, not tear it to shreds and curse the livelihoods of the writers and director. To me that's an indication that one has lost a bit of grip on the chain of reality.
This is all just a more verbose way of saying that Trek fans who slam it for being mindless action are guilty of selective criticism. You apply that same label to their favorite Trek movie, and they'll shock, gasp, and immediately launch into a tirade about how you just don't see the bigger picture. We all do it, we all have our sacred cows, but that's because we all have our reasons for loving the movies that we do.
My least favorite film is Star Trek: Nemesis, and I could go on about why I don't like so many aspects of it, but I don't go into the movies forum and slam it at every opportunity. I don't mock Stuart Baird like he's a fool, because he's not. I didn't like his direction regarding the film, but I know he's a capable editor, and I doubt he's actually stupid. I've seen the films he's edited; I know better than to believe he's incompetent. I just didn't like how he directed Nemesis, and that should be respected, just as I respect those who don't like my favorite movies (I love TFF, for example, and I KNOW how maligned that film is).
Live and let live, I say. Granted, if I see someone say something I know is in error, I will act to correct it (for example, "Spock never showed emotion in the original series! This movie changed that!), but if it's just an opinion ("I don't like the lighting, it's too bright!"), then I'm fine with that.
I'm rambling now, so I'll go ahead and stop, should you have any questions, comments, whisky. I'll accept all three.
This ^ These people turned out a fun and profitable movie, and they get treated like crap for it.
There are times I'm embarrassed for our fandom the way the vocal minority has become the "face" of it.
I am embarrassed for the people who have to deal with it every day, and I always hope they don't think the majority of fans are like that.