Captain Nebula wrote:
Definitely not the worst Star Trek movie.
That's probably because they took the script for one of the most liked Trek film, youthinised the characters, stripped one to her skivvies, added supertransporters and lense flares, then repackaged it as a new film.
We'll pretend for a moment that you're absolutely 100% right (which you aren't as anyone who doesn't have an ax to grind knows).
You and others seem to leave out one key point: those elements came from a movie made thirty-plus years ago. The audience that Into Darkness
was aimed at wasn't even alive. They aren't all Trek obsessed and seen The Wrath of Khan
fifty times and can quote it line-by-line.
Let's be fair here. Some Trekkies have an axe to grind against STID for whatever reason, and some Trekkies have an axe to grind against those Trekkies who did not enjoy STID. I take it from your tone that you exist in the latter group?
Now STID did take some portions of TWOK and rearrange them, and the final product did not add to up to much in the eyes of some Trekkies and fans. So I can understand Bry_Sinclair
's issues with STID.
Wait! STiD was a remake?
That means 'The Dark Knight' was a remake of 1989's 'Batman' because it had The Joker in it!
Damn you, Hollywood!
I like remakes if they're good and the DK totally nailed it primarily because of the Joker. The DK is a little messy with the plot and two scenes are really laughable (Harvey disarming a witness with a gun in court, and the people in those boats deliberating over whether to activate the detonator) but you overlooked that because of the Joker. He was a character you just wanted to see MOAR of!
But without the Joker the Dark Knight would have been a pretty average movie, so the line between average and greatness is very thin indeed.