most disappointing Trek movie?

[K1productions]

The neck and pylons were longer and thinner
The neck was attached far more inward on the saucer
The thinner pylons were backswept, pulling the already awkwardly placed nacelles in an even more awkward position
and the nacelles were about 2/3 size as well

 

[plynch]

Much as I disliked the on-steroids look, I prefer the earlier to the latter. Matter of taste.
Interesting, thanks.

 

[JaxsBrokenHeart]

Part of me is curious to see if Beyond holds up with a rewatch.

After seeing how Into Darkness turned out, my interest in the Kelvinverse dropped a lot, with the Beastie Boys trailer for BEY doing little to assuage my suspicion that it would turn out to be as much of an action oriented schlocky mess that ID was. After hearing good things from various people I knew and finally seeing it via streaming months after it release, it was a genuinely pleasant surprise to see how good it was and that the writing for Kirk finally felt it was doing the character justice.

Essentially it was a movie very buoyed from the initial low expectations I had, and it has me wondering how much quality is still there removed from the context that I saw it.

 

[K1productions]

Action is not necessarily bad, so long as it isn't just action for action's sake. If it drives the story/plot forward, then it is perfectly fine. Its not like TOS didn't have plenty of instances of the network just wanting to see a bare knuckle fist fight (literally their ultimatum for allowing a second pilot)

 

[STEPhon IT]

Was "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" pure action?

Is that really relevant to what I asked? Really???

 

[STEPhon IT]

Much as I disliked the on-steroids look, I prefer the earlier to the latter. Matter of taste.
Interesting, thanks.

There wasn't enough time or moments to like or appreciate the latter version, she was gone too soon IMO. It's hard for me to like any of the new ship designs in newer Trek.

 

[somebuddyX]

Is that really relevant to what asked? Really???

I think he's just saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, that Into Darkness is an action film with ideas whilst LTBYLB is an ideas episode with action (I guess, I've never seen the whole thing). That they're both different flavours of Trek and both equally valid.

 

[STEPhon IT]

I think he's just saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, that Into Darkness is an action film with ideas whilst LTBYLB is an ideas episode with action (I guess, I've never seen the whole thing). That they're both different flavours of Trek and both equally valid.

The statements made by F King Daniel (and Dolongo) made Into Darkness less of a spectacle??? That's all JJ Abrams movies are, pure spectacle, no matter what instances of exposition done politically, I can't believe anyone would take those scenes seriously or make them less than what they are. I don't see Into Darkness as preachy like "Let Them Be Your Last Battlefield" which was horrible and insulting to a viewer. I don't go to JJ Abrams' movies for insight on social and political subject matters, he's just not that kind of filmmaker and I doubt he could produce anything close to something of merit or weight.

 

[suarezguy]

I'm surprise to read fans hating the JJ Trek movies because I thought it did what it was supposed to do at the time was to reinvigorate Star Trek. I thought Insurrection and Nemesis almost buried Star Trek because of it's self righteous and preachy storytelling and didn't have the flavor I thought Star Trek was about: the path for adventure and fun.

I thought 09 (though itself decent and fun) and ID felt more than a little too reminiscent of Nemesis, with all of them trying to rip off/cash in on TWoK.

 

[STEPhon IT]

Besides Carol Marcus, Khan and the death scene what were the other comparisons where Into Darkness ripped off of TWOK? Both of those movies had different themes and the motivations were distinctive to their own.

 

[plynch]

Besides Carol Marcus, Khan and the death scene what were the other comparisons where Into Darkness ripped off of TWOK? Both of those movies had different themes and the motivations were distinctive to their own.

Most iconic Trek villain and most iconic Trek scene are pretty big things to dismiss. You are right about the movies' themes, though.

Edit: If the movie were truly about drone use and morals in war, I think that should've been the overarching, unmistakable plot. It sorta gets buried, doesn't it? Right before the bad admiral trope (warmongering deep state, anyone?) that takes over.

 

[K1productions]

Some of the blame for Khan being in Into Darkness falls on places like this.

Before anyone rage-replies, allow me to clarify for a moment.

Immediately after the 2009 film, message boards and forums and the like were abuzz with "Will Khan be in the next movie?", "Who will they get to play the new Khan?", "I hope they don't put Khan in the next film"
Positive or negative, it was a lot of "Khan, Khan, Khan"
Now, put yourself in the shoes of the studio analysts who's job it is to see what generates the most buzz within the fan communities after the first film. Are you going to see the name "Khan" mentioned so much and NOT tell this to your bosses in the executive offices? And when those same corporate suits see one of the most oft repeated mentions within these fan pages at the time was "Khan", are you going to make any decision OTHER than putting Khan in the movie?
From their perspective, there was literally no other option.

Now, let me be clear, as Spock said more than once in TOS "I did not say I agree with it, I said I understand it"

What I do not understand however was the decision to lie about it. The whole time before Into Darkness, any time anyone mentioned "Khan", Paramount would either play dumb and say "I don't know what you're talking about", or blatantly lie with "Khan is definitely not in this film". If they were just open with it from the get-go, I feel the backlash would have been far less severe.

Its one of the big problems with social media, so much information goes around that it becomes nearly impossible to keep things quiet without blatant mis-direction, and it is extremely unfortunate. It makes things 10x more difficult than it needs to be, and itself creates its own problem. Back in the day, you had to deliberately look for the places that share information, theories, leaks and so fort, so it was far easier to avoid spoilers. Today, things just pop up front and center on your feed, and once you see them... you cannot unsee them.

Occasionally, without realizing, we become our own enemy in these cases.... and there is no real way that I can see to avoid it. Sometimes we just have to deal with the fact that we cannot just go back to the way things were, the genie is already out of the bottle. The only possible solution I can see is for everyone at large to stop caring about spoilers, then they will no longer have to swerve us... but that is not gonna happen.

 

[Smellmet]

Some of the blame for Khan being in Into Darkness falls on places like this.

Before anyone rage-replies, allow me to clarify for a moment.

Immediately after the 2009 film, message boards and forums and the like were abuzz with "Will Khan be in the next movie?", "Who will they get to play the new Khan?", "I hope they don't put Khan in the next film"
Positive or negative, it was a lot of "Khan, Khan, Khan"
Now, put yourself in the shoes of the studio analysts who's job it is to see what generates the most buzz within the fan communities after the first film. Are you going to see the name "Khan" mentioned so much and NOT tell this to your bosses in the executive offices? And when those same corporate suits see one of the most oft repeated mentions within these fan pages at the time was "Khan", are you going to make any decision OTHER than putting Khan in the movie?
From their perspective, there was literally no other option.

Now, let me be clear, as Spock said more than once in TOS "I did not say I agree with it, I said I understand it"

What I do not understand however was the decision to lie about it. The whole time before Into Darkness, any time anyone mentioned "Khan", Paramount would either play dumb and say "I don't know what you're talking about", or blatantly lie with "Khan is definitely not in this film". If they were just open with it from the get-go, I feel the backlash would have been far less severe.

Its one of the big problems with social media, so much information goes around that it becomes nearly impossible to keep things quiet without blatant mis-direction, and it is extremely unfortunate. It makes things 10x more difficult than it needs to be, and itself creates its own problem. Back in the day, you had to deliberately look for the places that share information, theories, leaks and so fort, so it was far easier to avoid spoilers. Today, things just pop up front and center on your feed, and once you see them... you cannot unsee them.

Occasionally, without realizing, we become our own enemy in these cases.... and there is no real way that I can see to avoid it. Sometimes we just have to deal with the fact that we cannot just go back to the way things were, the genie is already out of the bottle. The only possible solution I can see is for everyone at large to stop caring about spoilers, then they will no longer have to swerve us... but that is not gonna happen.

I agree with everything you've said here. Hell I was excited at the prospect of a kelvin khan - not saying I agreed with it but can totally see why he was chosen. I mean, trek has a hard enough time competing at the box office without not going for the top TOS villain. I get it. I kinda wanted it secretly.

Things have changed though. Especially people's expectations, and that's before we even get to the long standing fanbase. They're damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

And then the film goes and becomes the most successful of the franchise so go figure. I do however think it could have gone higher if they had doubled down on khan instead of the secrecy too, but that's just my opinion.

 

[plynch]

Khan as overacted by Montalban was Trek's best "villain."

Phlegmatic ambiguous Khan who doesn't seem like Khan-as-we-knew-him? Dumb move.

 

[Mudd]

ST:TFF.

 

[Officer Schröder]

The Motion Picture is really disappointing... Why? For most of the time nothing is happening and it's boring. The end is 'Highly Illogical'. The Wrath Of Khan is a good improvement over the first movie.

 

[Smellmet]

Phlegmatic ambiguous Khan who doesn't seem like Khan-as-we-knew-him? Dumb move.

I don't think it was a dumb move. It was probably the best decision, commercially, and the numbers don't lie.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't think it was a dumb move. It was probably the best decision, commercially, and the numbers don't lie.

Indeed, yes. As @K1productions notes Khan is the most hyped up villain in Trek's history. Even the prospect of him appearing in the sequel to 09 was enough to set rumor mills spinning. It garnered attention by mere mention.

Like it or not, Khan is iconic to Trek. It's not going away. Khan was inevitable. And Into Darkness played with it well enough with Cumberbatch when del Toro fell through. Cumberbatch's Khan felt very much like Space Seed Khan but with a new level of malevolence directed at Marcus. It unveiled that cold and calculating killer in Khan in a much more powerful way.

And it is often overlooked that Marcus was the true villain, creating weapons of war specifically so he could go and fight. He was willing to kill Federation citizens (supposedly) to cover it all up. Ultimately his belief that war was inevitable led to far more harm to the Federation citizens.

I get that Into Darkness was unfortunately going to draw TWOK comparisons and Into Darkness would not end up on the positive end of such a comparison. But, it still did a good job as a Star Trek film.

 

[suarezguy]

Some of the blame for Khan being in Into Darkness falls on places like this.

Before anyone rage-replies, allow me to clarify for a moment.

Immediately after the 2009 film, message boards and forums and the like were abuzz with "Will Khan be in the next movie?", "Who will they get to play the new Khan?", "I hope they don't put Khan in the next film"
Positive or negative, it was a lot of "Khan, Khan, Khan"

I believe most saying that of course they shouldn't, wouldn't, won't do him again right away.

 

[Vger23]

Some of the blame for Khan being in Into Darkness falls on places like this.

Before anyone rage-replies, allow me to clarify for a moment.

Immediately after the 2009 film, message boards and forums and the like were abuzz with "Will Khan be in the next movie?", "Who will they get to play the new Khan?", "I hope they don't put Khan in the next film"
Positive or negative, it was a lot of "Khan, Khan, Khan"
Now, put yourself in the shoes of the studio analysts who's job it is to see what generates the most buzz within the fan communities after the first film. Are you going to see the name "Khan" mentioned so much and NOT tell this to your bosses in the executive offices? And when those same corporate suits see one of the most oft repeated mentions within these fan pages at the time was "Khan", are you going to make any decision OTHER than putting Khan in the movie?
From their perspective, there was literally no other option.

Now, let me be clear, as Spock said more than once in TOS "I did not say I agree with it, I said I understand it"

What I do not understand however was the decision to lie about it. The whole time before Into Darkness, any time anyone mentioned "Khan", Paramount would either play dumb and say "I don't know what you're talking about", or blatantly lie with "Khan is definitely not in this film". If they were just open with it from the get-go, I feel the backlash would have been far less severe.

Its one of the big problems with social media, so much information goes around that it becomes nearly impossible to keep things quiet without blatant mis-direction, and it is extremely unfortunate. It makes things 10x more difficult than it needs to be, and itself creates its own problem. Back in the day, you had to deliberately look for the places that share information, theories, leaks and so fort, so it was far easier to avoid spoilers. Today, things just pop up front and center on your feed, and once you see them... you cannot unsee them.

Occasionally, without realizing, we become our own enemy in these cases.... and there is no real way that I can see to avoid it. Sometimes we just have to deal with the fact that we cannot just go back to the way things were, the genie is already out of the bottle. The only possible solution I can see is for everyone at large to stop caring about spoilers, then they will no longer have to swerve us... but that is not gonna happen.

100%

Fans bitch and moan that they don't get what they want out of Star Trek...but then when the production team actually look online to see what fans are buzzing about, and give it to them, they bitch and moan about that.

Bob Orci, for example, was a heavy participant over at Trekmovie.com....and that place was abuzz with "who will be the next villian" speculation...and it was primarily "Khan" and "this needs to be Trek's Dark Night" kind of talk. So what the hell did people expect?

It's just like when people complain about modern Trek being too edgy when some of the most popular franchise entries with the fans are

TWOK
TUC
FC
(all of which contained bloody murders, tons of pew pew, moustache-twirling villains, violence, adult language, and edgier characters / less utopian values).

Guys....we get what we "tell" them we want.