Why Is "Into Darkness" So Hated?

Montalban truly was inspired casting, and I love them for doing it.

 

I enjoyed the movie, but the Khan reveal fell flat because he means nothing to the main characters he's talking to. It would be like Darth Vader telling Luke that he's Cassian Andor's father.

Thought it might've been interesting if he had been another character like Joaquim who was pretending to be Khan, but then it would've been a different movie.

 

The Khan reveal is something that I actually have warmed up to, even though I strongly disagree with Khan as the secondary villain. The reveal is more of a tonal shift, from Khan as the McGuffin, the object Kirk is hunting for, to his reassertion of his authority, reclaiming his rightful name of "Khan" and how Marcus had taken that away from him.

When Khan tells Kirk his name in TOS it doesn't mean much to the crew either. Only later do they put all the historical pieces together. Like in ID, by the time Spock and Kirk put it all together it is too late to prevent death and destruction.

Thematically it's actually quite interesting, as names carry a certain amount of importance to Kirk and to Khan. We see a bit of mirroring from ST 09 to ID: "My name is James Kirk." "And who am I?" "Your father's son." to "My name is Khan."

The person behind the name is not the significant moment; the reclaiming of the name is.

 

He could be!

 

Honestly, I loved this movie the best out of the trilogy, with the first film coming in as a very close second favorite. I enjoyed seeing all the character interactions and even the cameo of Carol Marcus (who they should have kept in for the third one considering her and Kirk's future). I think what I loved most about it was seeing Kirk and Spock actually act as friends instead of their rocky relationship in the first one. It was a fun and complex film.

 

Which was actually the past of a different timeline.

 

Kelvin Kirk didn't seem all that interested in Marcus. I would have liked if they had subverted expectations and went with McCoy instead (who did seem interested in her).

 

Indeed. The growth in the second film, especially with Carol, was well done. She was missed in Beyond.

 

This movie is going to be 10 years old this year...

 

*decays*

 

Ah, memories. All those years ago I saw ST:ID in the theater with a buddy who had only a passing familiarity with Star Trek, and hadn't even seen Star Trek (2009). He was confused because "the bald guy" wasn't in this movie.

Kor

 

Hurts it on first watch too. When I first saw it there was audible laughter in the theater during the "Khaaaaan" yell -- not really what the filmmakers were going for. As for rewatch, Abrams' movies get worse the more you see them; that should tell you something.

 

That's certainly one opinion. I still enjoy the Abrams films, and consider Star Trek (2009) one of the best entries in the whole Trek film catalog.

 

Into Darkness is my favourite of all the films and every time I watch it again it only reaffirms my view. 09 is my second favourite.

And just to forestall the potential charges of being a newbie to Trek, I’ve seen every official iteration more than once (save Prodigy—just didn’t grab me) and I’ve been doing so since autumn 1973.

 

Nope. Still rewatch them more than any other Trek film. TUC tops my list but still prefer the fun of these films.

Same with The Force Awakens.

 

I don't 'hate' it but I will admit that when I saw it in theaters I walked out of it embarrassed. I think if you have a vary basic ST knowledge, or none, then this is a fine movie. I was new to ST in 2009 but I caught myself up enough to know how things should work in this universe. Is not bad per se but I think it's the worse of the 3. I personally have a soft spot for the Abrams universe and would love a 4th (or more!)

 

very, I don't know how to edit yet

 

Well, just by pure numbers it's the least failed of any of the trek movies.

There are 2 major reasons some people dislike it. There are a few similarities and one scene that I don't like either that mimics an emotional scene from favorite Star Trek II.

The other is a darker "tone".

The first had some legit criticisms. They should not have replicated the Kirk-Spock scene, though it does ring true as a parallel event in a parallel universe.

It's 2023 and about 40% of Trekkies still don't realize the Kelvin universe is not the Prime universe. Don't believe me, run a search on social media.

The darker tone is also legit, however this ignores the mild political commentary against unilateral drone attacks as well as the more obvious criticism of corruption in military/official circles. In the final outcome, Starfleet (Kirk and co) actually succeeds in defending Starfleet against itself, upholding all the usual ethics standards we come to expect.

That's Trek isn't it?

I think Trekkies who don't put much thought into these things probably missed all this, and the those who were right wing gleaned all this and hated the commentary.

So there you have it. It's actually an excellent Action-adventure minus a few scenes. Nothing is perfect.

 

Damn straight!

 

Talk about pulling a stat out of your nacelle