Timeline for Why do so many Trekkies hate Star Trek Into Darkness?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
32 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 22, 2018 at 1:16 | comment | added | Praxis | @RogueJedi : I wrote "ends up lampooning" not "meant to lampoon". Only the latter implies intent. | |
| Mar 21, 2018 at 21:28 | comment | added | Rogue Jedi | Do you have any evidence the death scene was meant to "lampoon" WoK? I took it as a poorly handled attempt to replicate a classic moment in Trek Lore. | |
| Mar 21, 2018 at 20:16 | comment | added | Machavity | I still consider this commentary to be definitive on the subject. It's like Snarky Luke Skywalker from The Last Jedi reviewed the movie. | |
| Mar 21, 2018 at 12:11 | comment | added | Misha R | I'm someone who has actually seen the remake before the original (not because of age, just never got around to it before), and I gotta say, I don't think the original holds up today. I mean fans might think it's sacrilege to mess with it - but (IMO, obviously), by the standards of today's movies, the original is kinda campy, with so-so acting (and yes, I very much include the original "KHAAAN!!!" - I mean, look at it!), and the whole movie feels a little rinky dink when compared with the remake. I think that, if you want the Star Trek character of Khan to survive, the original is just too old. | |
| May 20, 2017 at 8:48 | comment | added | Ghoti657 | "Transporter range" is a fluid concept in Star Trek, being whatever it needs to be for a particular episode. But it has never been quadrant-sized" In DS9, the Dominion had transporter technology that worked over at least a few lightyears. Although, it was not Scotty who invented it, but likely a Changeling. By the end of DS9, the Federation certainly had this technology. I agree though, in fact, I think this was the worst Star Trek movie ever, even worse than Nemesis. | |
| Sep 20, 2016 at 14:19 | comment | added | Dev | I have seen most of the trek movies but wrath of khan wasn't one of them. So for me, except for the name nothing was familiar. I liked the movie. On that note, (replying to one of the previous comments)I think the one reason why the spaceships were more adaptable than older ones were because today we have better technology & some things feel natural which previously were thought as far fetched or pointless. Its a new idea which is a possibility in the near future due to advance in technology and man-made compounds.(corrosion free?buoyant?) one can question the plot line but not the technology. | |
| Sep 19, 2016 at 15:22 | history | edited | Praxis | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 523 characters in body
|
| Sep 11, 2016 at 16:43 | comment | added | Anthony X | Just remembered some reasons are touched on in the honest trailer videos youtube.com/watch?v=OTfBH-XFdSc youtube.com/watch?v=6B22Uy7SBe4 | |
| Aug 30, 2016 at 3:26 | comment | added | Anthony X | The "further reading" references are excellent sources of insight. Just beware: the first one ("Intelligence"), although comprehensive, is somewhat rambling and repetitive. | |
| Aug 30, 2016 at 2:17 | comment | added | Anthony X | Hollywood is business. The Abrams movies were engineered by the studio to fill seats in order to maximize return on a big-budget investment. That means broad appeal, not catering to a niche fan base. So they took everything iconic about the original series and jammed it into a formula comedy/action/adventure movie - the kind which always costs a lot but sells really well. Canon be damned, you've got all the recognizable characters saying and doing their trademark things, a cool Enterprisey-looking spaceship, and lots of ray gun and explosion action; what more could anyone want? | |
| Aug 30, 2016 at 2:09 | comment | added | Anthony X | Consider also that in TWOK, Kirk and Spock have had a bro-mance spanning multiple decades prior to the engine room scene; in Into Darkness, they're barely over the mutual animosity featured in reboot#1 and there goes Spock shedding tears? Prior to the reboot, starships could barely handle flight in an atmosphere, let alone land or double as a submarine. | |
| Aug 30, 2016 at 0:40 | history | edited | Praxis | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Aug 29, 2016 at 19:33 | comment | added | DCShannon | I really liked this movie, but I only saw it the one time in the theater. Now I'm worried about rewatching it. | |
| Aug 29, 2016 at 18:55 | comment | added | Praxis | @Thomas : Agreed. The film just has too many things that make no sense. | |
| Aug 29, 2016 at 18:26 | comment | added | Thomas | @praxis that I could live with, but a defenseless kronos.......just makes absolutely no sense at all. (why again were the klingons.....a danger?) | |
| Aug 29, 2016 at 17:34 | comment | added | O. R. Mapper | @Adamant: "maybe it would be helpful to add some references (articles etc.) indicating that these opinions are widespread" - please do note that one of the issues that fans have with Into Darkness (and also some other parts of the Abramsverse) is that you do not have to venture deeply into opinion territory, but you can simply stick with the facts as shown on screen to stumble over plot problems. | |
| Aug 29, 2016 at 16:25 | history | edited | Praxis | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Aug 29, 2016 at 15:39 | comment | added | Praxis | @Thomas : Starships also seem to be able to warp from Qo'noS to Earth in a few minutes, as the Vengeance chase scene seems to suggest. | |
| Aug 29, 2016 at 7:59 | comment | added | Thomas | One point maybe also: How the heck did a constitution class ship manage to get to Kronos without a single klingon space ship trying to hail it or stop it?! (never could wrap my head around that one.....and then a second even bigger ship appears in the same system without any klingon defense ships showing up).....pacifist demilitarizied klingons? | |
| Aug 29, 2016 at 7:02 | history | edited | Praxis | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 72 characters in body
|
| Aug 29, 2016 at 6:55 | history | edited | Praxis | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 72 characters in body
|
| Aug 29, 2016 at 6:49 | history | edited | Praxis | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 72 characters in body
|
| Aug 29, 2016 at 6:43 | history | edited | Praxis | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 72 characters in body
|
| Aug 29, 2016 at 5:44 | history | edited | Praxis | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| Aug 29, 2016 at 5:11 | history | edited | Praxis | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 62 characters in body
|
| Aug 29, 2016 at 3:41 | comment | added | Praxis | @Adamant : Done. (I resisted citing articles at first precisely because I didn't want it to seem that I was toeing the "party line" and just repeating other Trekkies' complaints. So for posterity, let me just say that my write-up above was fully composed before I added in any references.) | |
| Aug 29, 2016 at 3:38 | history | edited | Praxis | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 637 characters in body
|
| Aug 29, 2016 at 3:31 | comment | added | Adamant | Very nice and detailed. These are of course some of the major problems fans had. In the interest of objectivity, though, maybe it would be helpful to add some references (articles etc.) indicating that these opinions are widespread, and not just those of one purist. | |
| Aug 29, 2016 at 2:41 | history | edited | Praxis | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Aug 29, 2016 at 2:33 | history | edited | Praxis | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Aug 29, 2016 at 2:27 | history | edited | Praxis | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Aug 29, 2016 at 2:21 | history | answered | Praxis | CC BY-SA 3.0 |