I’m watching STID right now, which is my first viewing since seeing it in a theater 10 1/2 years ago. Here’s why I dislike it (not “hate” it)
Terrible script. Miserable characters. Music desperate to make me care. Benedict Cumberbatch is the least compelling I’ve ever seen him. And magic blood.
On the plus side, it’s pretty to look at.
The points I'll agree with are:
* Music desperate to make me care.
This seems to be common in shows nowdays - if it wasn't trite by 2013, it's beyond so now. More and more often, music ceases to complement a scene but to
be it. It can easily be bombastic and designed to do the work that isn't being put into the scripts and told by the actors as the characters. IMHO, that's akin to a cheat and should be insulting to the audience. Plus, it's also insulting to those with hearing problems, who'd rather hear the actors speak - otherwise, just train a bunch of dogs to bark on cue as it won't make any difference. Actually, it would, since service dogs are used for people with various health conditions and many would see that as being more important. I could go on, but is the storytelling about the characters' situations and interactions, or about the "ethereal" music? (It's a word I'm seeing people use more often, but I'd use words other than ethereal because it's faux spirituality at best.)
* Benedict Cumberbatch is the least compelling I’ve ever seen him
Excellent actor, yes, but miscast. At times, he's surprisingly wooden when not being unintentionally comical. His reveal of "Khan" only solidifies the script opting to dig up the old character instead of doing something new wasn't a good idea. He was far better as John Harrison before the "oh-so-big epic reveal" that had me stifling a laugh in the theater. The movie trying to ape cherrypicked bits of Khan wasn't doing much.
* Terrible script
It starts out really good, IMHO, there is much promise and - indeed - some originality, but it starts to lose out once it's all about the "Khan". It was as completely unnecessary as it was completely risible, especially as Khan and Kirk are now pals for a brief while*. All just to change Khan's backstory**. Does the movie series still need to cling to TOS even more than TNG ever had in season one? The fact that this movie felt a need to - for crowd-pleasing spectacle - rip up a city on Earth*** also suggests lazy and cheap scripting, in a show whose very mission has sod all to do with Earth but we'll reboot the thing and haul 'em to Earth for as many flicks in a row as possible. TOS and its follow-up film from 1982 didn't need to hightail it back to Earth for dramaaaaaaaaatic effect. Hell, the film didn't even have the characters meet for the audience expectation of a boxing match and the movie didn't turn into doodoo as a result of eschewing that.
* I suppose it works better if you remember it's a parallel timeline completely independent of the original. Or it's just silly scripting
** a rearrangement that has some sense, but - again - is as much fanwanky as it is pointless.
*** using a ship named "USS Vengeance" and is a shade of black instead of the usual grays. Apparently, if you believe the image search, some initial concept artwork also had an edgier and spiky design adornments as well, as if it were a novelty fish-catching gear, if not novelty beer opener as a gag gift for anyone not allowed to drink alcohol (people with pancreas or liver disorders, some diabetics, alcoholics, etc). Glad those weren't used in the final design of "it's so much bigger than the hero, like muh David versus Goliath!" routine. It's not good when the scene of the Excelsior in TSFS felt more dramatic and it was roughly the same size as Enterprise...
