what the “fans want” doesn’t necessarily make a movie good though. It’s just pandering.
You have to balance the two. Sometimes they do, most of the time they don't. But so long as moviemaking is a business instead of an art,... you're gonna keep getting that same situation again and again.
no surprise to me, Khan resurfaced, because Star Trek films have lived in the long dark shadow of TWOK fore decades.
Its one of the many, MANY reasons why I argue that Voyage Home should occupy the pedestal of the greatest Star Trek film, as it has everything that makes Star Trek great, without having to fit the Hollywood checklist (which unfortunately is part of what made Wrath of Khan), namely easily identifiable villain with an easy-to-understand motivation for the casual audience. Voyage Home was a bit more nuanced, AND the threat was never treated as a "bad guy to defeat" rather a mystery to be solved and a question to be answered. Also remains the only Trek film where every main character is given a moment to shine and isn't just a bridge bunny. Perhaps if we championed Voyage Home as the ultimate Trek movie, we would have more variety in Trek films today, or at the very least less "bad guy of the week" syndrome.
Khan isn't the same as TWOK. He is more cruel, more cold and calculating. He has labored under Marcus' thumb and thus is a bit more sadistic in his approach.
Another reason why I feel the standard argument "Its just a ripoff of Wrath of Khan" is totally absurd. Not only was Khan far closer to Space Seed, but everything that formed his motivation in Wrath was missing. Plus every single plot element of Wrath was missing as well - cadets on training cruise, Kirk coming to grips with aging (practically given up at the time), captured crew of another starship, and GENESIS. My gods, talk about something with totally wasted potential for Star Trek storytelling, GENESIS. Something that SHOULD have formed the backbone of the entire Star Trek II film, but instead it is treated as nothing more than a bargaining chip between Khan and Kirk. It was a prop. At least Star Trek III did SOMETHING with it (granted, gave it a flaw that invalidated the whole thing).
Speaking of Star Trek III, Into Darkness has more similarity with Search for Spock than Wrath of Khan.
Kirk disobeying orders from his superior, and a larger more powerful new starship totally outclasses Enterprise, only for Scotty to sabotage it along the way.
2009 is closer to Wrath of Khan than Into Darkness is. Nero was pretty much the same as STII Khan, complete with a planet-erasing weapon, just his vengeance was against Spock rather than Kirk. They even had Kobayashi Maru in it FFS.
"But Khan and Carol Marcus were in Into Darkness"... that's like saying Search for Spock is a ripoff of "Journey to Babel" (TOS) because Sarek was in it. Oh, Voyage Home would then be an even BIGGER ripoff of that episode, because both Sarek AND Amanda were in it.
If people don't want to like Into Darkness, that's fine. Nobody is saying they have to. We can talk about story structure, plot progression, and I will agree with most of those complaints. But I fear too many find that discussion too difficult, and instead try to reach for some quick and easy answer, and that is when things fall apart. Some of Star Trek's absolute best moments were from essentially "ripping off" other things. Like "Balance of Terror" (TOS) ripping off the movie "The Enemy Below", or "Duet" (DS9) ripping off "The Man in the Glass Booth"
Even the "he wasn't a fan of Star Trek" complaint made against JJ Abrams is equally absurd, as neither Nick Meyer nor Harve Bennett were fans of Star Trek before being give the job of Director and Producer respectively.
The quick, safe, and easy answer isn't always the best one... in fact it is oftentimes the worst.
