You're not the only one; MILLIONS of people across the planet loved the movie (and the previous one), myself included. Who hates both movies? IMHO, people who treat Star Trek as a religion and think that Abrams, Orci, and Kurtzman somehow violated sacred tenets and are apostates who've violated the purity of it, as I've said before.
All that, you I' and other who like the movies can do is just keep on liking them and pay the people who don't no mind, they're in the minority, and the wrong side of things, and they know it.
I hate the movies because they're badly-written, poorly-acted, and practically nothing about them makes any sense. STiD did have some nice musical passages, though.
I don't hate the movies, but -from a writing, non-Trek standpoint - the characters are not really growing. While I enjoy the actors, the sets, the music....we are presented with characters that I don't care about. For example:
*Kirk is an immature douche, and -after a few months - gets to command a ship of 400+ people. Also, he uses his command to get into the panties of females.
*Spock is prone to violent outbursts at various times, and we don't get how he and Kirk suddenly got along.
*Uhura is tough and sexy, but her relevance mainly comes into play when it involves her boyfriend, Spock.
*Sulu has a bit more to do actionwise, but still a minor supporting character.
*Chekov has a lot more to do actionwise, but still a minor supporting character.
*Scotty actually had a good moment in STID when he asked to the extent 'Are we supposed to be explorers?' (And, yes, I enjoy his banter with Keener).
John Harrison would have made more sense to be a follower of Khan. (And even, we probably could have had Khan introduced in the
next film). Even from a non-Trek point of view, it's like casting a white European actor as a character named Ling T'su and the writers say 'Go with it!' It is a huge plot point as to why a white guy has an Asian name. A huge plot point that isn't explained in the film.
Furthermore, classic Spock automatically assumes that nuSpock is talking about classic Khan. (Montalban's version, which...one could also ask in regards to him: 'How did he come across the name?')
For all the audience knew, Khan Noonien Singh in the Abramsverse could have been a woman or child - of any race or color - or an android, or alien, or 'something' that just took the name. Yet, classic Spock gives a load of exposition without reason.
And, for what reason where the Klingons in the story? They could have been taken out, and that time used for hero/villain character development.
I may be in the minority on this forum, but as for the "wrong" side if things? BS. There are lots of things I like that other people don't. As others here have said, it's all subjective.
Very correct, but there is a reason why Captain America 2 succeeded where the first film (or many superhero films) failed. It decided to tell a solid story with an actual goal, not insult the audience, make consistent characters that the audience will care about, etc...etc...etc.
However, Orci and Kurtzman also wrote the Transformers films...and there are people who love those films. Sooooo....
They should have left him as John Harrison and mentioned he was one of Khan's people. That would have been sufficient.
Agreed.
Wow, Star Trek is fiction? Suspend disbelief? Those are stunning insights, dude, I can't believe nobody's thought to bring those up or address them before. Well done.
