Breaking Down Arguments Against STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS & Why Trekkies Are Wrong

Are you tired of crazed fanboys arguing Star Trek Into Darkness was a bad film? Have you been in a position to defend the film from someone that had trouble grasping reality as they raged against it? I have! I’m exhausted. Maybe you're the one raging against it?

Follow E.F. "Manny":
By E.F. "Manny" Camacho - 9/13/2013

By a Group of Trekkies/Trekkers at a Trek Convention



Most of us, regardless of which genre-based community we focus on have probably seen STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS. Most of us have also thoroughly enjoyed the film. That is unless we're part of a purist Star Trek fandom community, self-proclaimed as Trekkers; which hate to be referred to as Trekkies. I'm associating myself from here on out as a sensibly purist Trek Fan, not a Trekkie, or Trekker.

I’ve read numerous articles from various blogs, and even respected media sites inciting propaganda; which I find appalling for the level of insanity surrounding this film. A film that is completely successful, financially, commercially, and critically.

I’m able to concede specific arguments that have merit when it comes to looking at any film from a purist point of view. I myself can be a purist, but I’m a realist, and somewhat of a pragmatist. Even if I share idealistic views with said purists; I'll still admit when a movie is just great fun, and pays homage (when it’s not required) to its source. I can turn off the purist and just enjoy a film experience without being pretentious about what I think or expect it’s supposed to be.

The most recent article I read stated to pull the 14 most specific arguments that were heralded as the most complained about issues. While the article itself was accurate at putting these arguments together, they’re mostly idiotic arguments, with very small clauses to back them up. When the people making these arguments are cracked under the pressure of sensibility; scrutinized by people who are not seeing red, with straight forward answers. None of the empty rhetoric holds true, and is proven just that; empty rhetoric.

I wanted to explore these arguments and point out why they’re the points championed by what I might call "dumbasses". However, I don’t like to insult people for their views. However, this is what I call an "Editorial-Rant!” It’s my personal and direct views from one of my radical perspectives to argue what I am perceiving is someone else's biased radical perspective; using "Reductio Ad Absurdum" tactics, because this person simply cannot admit they didn't like something. Instead of being honest, they have been attacking this film. Truth be told, as strange as this will sound, has nothing to do with them, is not for them, and they are angry that they’re being left out.

I'll not be ordering the arguments among the ridiculum with any particular pattern


Spock Prime Breaking His Own Rules!?



This is one of the few that I can agree being argued, because it is a very good point, if it is what happened. Why would Spock reveal details about the future? We can start arguing theories of relativity, we can start debating concepts in determinism and we can breakdown quantum paradoxes as laid out by Stephen Hawking. But none of that is necessary.

First off, this is (and will always be) Science Fiction, it is not always routed in provable science, or even in theoretical sciences for that matter. I agree that Star Trek (“usually”) tries to base itself in workable hypothetical science, imagination come to life; but that’s as far as I’ll go.

A common example that all of the Trek series, and films use to prove you have to accept it purely as Sci-Fi: Sound in space, for starters... Another more specific example would be the use of Tachyon particles; used in countless episodes, and Trek films. A particle stated to be hypothetical, not theoretical, traveling faster than the speed of light. Also completely non-existent in reality (Earth-616 for all of the comic folk reading this). Not existent even in theory on the standard model in physics because it would break the existing rules of causality and special relativity. The fastest particle in physics that does not pick up mass in the Higgs field, going all the way back to the Big Bang is the photon, which simply travels at 186,000 miles per second, per second, without picking up perceptible mass as it traveled through this field. For those that want to be more technical in this answer, it travels 299,792,458 meters/second (used to measure E=MC squared, C= speed of light measured in meters).

Second, this film is essentially, and foremost based on TOS (Short hand for Star Trek, The Original Series, 1966-1969). Which means the bulk of rules that are made up, bent, and broken, are usually based on the haphazard manner Kirk actually ran his crew and missions during TOS; including the TOS films.

Third, and more specific to this argument. Spock didn't actually give any details. He didn't state how his crew defeated Khan originally, at least not on screen. Alt-Spock asked, but we don't know what was said; after all, Enterprise vs. Reliant inside a Nebula is not at all similar to this situation. Furthermore, this isn't really a Wrath of Khan remake...

Spock Prime didn't tell Alt-Spock, “…You’re going to die, and by the way do you have a Genesis Device? You’re going to need it to come back to life.” He didn't actually give up any details. You can argue that his comment about Khan being the most dangerous foe they encountered was detail enough; your thinking would actually not at all be accurate or true. He gave him a “Captain Obvious” answer in a cryptic manner. What Alt-Spock already knew, Spock Prime simply validated his concern.

Base this problem purely on observed, not presumed conversations. Spock Prime didn't reveal anything more than what Zock (Zachary-Spock) already knew... Khan was no F’ing joke.

Note: This film is a combination of events from "Wrath of Khan" familiar to the fandom; with most of the concepts here being from TOS's first encounter with Khan.


Transwarp Beaming...



This is another argument that should be debated, absolutely, but not on a fanboy rage forum. The first film demonstrated a formula for this scenario that was theoretical. It was also used as a major plot point to deliver Scotty and Kirk back onto the Enterprise. Scotty makes a commentary during Into Darkness about his frustration with his theories and formula’s being stolen and weaponized by Starfleet. This isn't really an argument anymore about “Where the hell did that tech come from?” This argument now should be more toward the concept of “Why do we need starships?”

The answer is almost completely obvious. This isn’t Stargate, it’s Star Trek, and the focus isn’t using this kind of tech to travel instantaneously. The easiest rebuttal to this is simply, the tech was extremely experimental, and possibly perfected by Khan. But to stay true to my commentary above, we only observed Khan use this tech; from context in the film, we know he was literally awakened to help design and perfect new tech and strategies for war. I can speculate the above because of that context, and because we know there was already an early aspect of this in precedent from the first film.


Magic Blood???



This has been taken extremely out of context from a comment Bones made in the film. Bone’s has always been unapologetically satirical and sarcastic. He’s comedy relief steeped in reality. The least likely to let his flights-of-fancy carry him away into the insane behaviors that we see Kirk usually thrust them all into.

Yet Bones is Treks Medical version of the “Miracle Worker” that Trek fans have experienced since the inception of Star Trek, through various incarnations of the medical officer in each series. Whether it’s a Deus Ex Machina-like particle, technology, or random new way to convert a tricorder or replicator, Trek finds a way. This isn’t new. The crazed fanboys have been arguing he simply removed one person’s blood and infused it into Kirk. This simply is not true. A lot of time passes from one medical procedure to the next. It would be short sighted to simply assume it was done “A-La-Bram-Stoker’s-Dracula” blood transfusion; literally pumping it out of one person, and directly injecting into the other.

This whole aspect is also trying to pay tribute to a beloved creature from the original TOS, the Tribbles. Losing sight of that cool nod is a bit of an injustice to the furry, humping-and-reproducing-like-rabbits, little balls of awesome.

The Real arguments here, in minutiae, is simply if the blood from Khan's other 72 crewman could be used to save Kirk, but because only Khan's was tested, there was no proof to suggested their blood was as applicable. Aside from the obvious state of plot used to create drama.


Where Was The Rest Of Starfleet?



Seriously? Sure let’s have this discussion, but don’t forget how many times it’s pretty much a focused bubble of just the Enterprise. State of Plot and Speed of Plot notwithstanding; Trek has usually broken down its entire fleet to maintain the illusion of the bubble for the purposes of dramatic elevation in any scene. If the Fleet would have been there to save the day, it would have been uncharacteristic of Trek. How often has the Enterprise fallen from the sky or been in earth proximity defending against a threat, by itself.

This argument shouldn't even be here, if anything the argument should be, "Haven’t we seen various ships fall into the atmosphere already?" In the end, we have, but nothing with the glorious carnage and Armageddon level of destruction we got from this film.

The most basic breakdown of this is simply Admiral Marcus is in control of the fleet, and didn't assign others to witness his crimes. Most of Starfleets ships are usually out exploring elsewhere, sitting in Memory Alpha, @ Deep Space K7 in the Eta Eridani border by the neutral zone (near Klingon Space, Omego Leonis Sector), or any number of other locations in space exploring.


Admiral Marcus Doesn't Make Sense!?



A corrupt power hungry military figure trying to tie up loose ends (frantically) is supposed to make sense? Even when his plans were completely ruined by someone, he unleashed (in the first place), superior to him in every way; started to bite him in the ass? I can’t imagine how else someone in this position, coming apart at the seams, is supposed to handle himself.

This character is another example of an early short-sighted Starfleet admiral gone horribly wrong. This timeline is not the same as the original, and many times in TOS and TNG (The Next Generation, for those not familiar) we saw the effects of changes in the timeline that made Starfleet almost completely setup as warmongers. While we don’t have this completely in this timeline, we do have a lot of the characteristics Kirk had against the Klingons displayed in Marcus. It’s not the same emotional content we got used to over a period of 3 years with TOS or in Wrath of Khan killing Kirk's son. But it is a sensical addition to another character without having to rehash the well known, “been there, done that - I HATE ALL KLINGONS!” bullshit we saw spread almost across five trek films.

Marcus was a corrupt Admiral, who had abused a tool he couldn't control; that broke away and began to revolt against him. Khan used tactics against Marcus that made the situation exceedingly more difficult for Marcus to cover up his crimes, and blatant disregard for Starfleet’s directives.

Marcus was also completely ruthless in his attacks against the Enterprise, which made it much more appealing to see in terms of conflict. It gave Kirk something to fight for, and it revisited his old sentiments of “I don’t believe in a No Win Situation” that goes all the way back to the heart of his character; from the Kobayashi Maru, to his normal nonchalant loss of red shirts in the TOS.

Marcus helped forge a more mature Kirk through adversity, than the one we’ve normally seen.

Which brings me to…


Alice Eve, Carol Marcus, Apparently Half Naked For No Reason!?



Kirk, since the beginning of Trek, since the Skirts in TOS, to the films; has been a Space-Slut. He always has been. This is a character flaw developed into Kirk based on the climate of the male ego in the 60’s during the inception of the character. While Trekkies want to be purists and raise Kirk onto a pedestal, the fact remains Kirk is a complete douche bag.

“SACRILEGE MACHO! SACRILEGE!”

To my reply “ORLY!”

Let me digress for a moment. Into an Editorial Note on my own past:

In my travels and “paying my dues” line of work I’ve built and worked on conventions for years, and I’ve had the pleasure of working with Shatner, his lovely wife, been to his home, ridden one of his horses, and have had various conversations and a couple of dinners with him and other cast members many years ago. In fact, one of my most cherished memories and early convention stories in one of my books is about my first time meeting Shatner, when I was seven years old, trying to get his signature on my original script of the pilot from TOS, The Cage (containing a smiling Spock, and absent Cpt. Kirk), as well as trying to meet, for the first time, Kenneth Johnson (the creator of “V”) at the same event.

I really shouldn't have needed to digress into my own experience with the man; who has consistently expressed his own (profoundly) insane levels of wisdom (and ego) about his own character to my peers and myself. To explain, what we already know, that Kirk is a dick, a douchebag, a poon-hound. However, I know this fandom well enough to know someone will ask "How do you know! You probably don't know science!?"...This is me descending into the same tactics to prove my point.

That said. Shatner himself hinted, in his books talking to fans, in his gestures in the films, and even in TOS; that Kirk’s character is a douche bag womanizer, and relatively proud of it; with a very “come at me bro” mentality toward the subject.

We see this In the first reboot. We see this in Into Darkness, but we also see his maturity climb significantly away from that persona in this film. Slowly, but climb none-the-less. Alice Eve nearly naked is just a footnote on that path for Kirk, developing away from that person. But we still need to see some of it to know where he came from.

The above is the intelligent, eloquent, and thoughtful rebuttal to this argument. The next comment has nothing to do with the above, and is far from eloquent.

“…Because the bitch is hot!” The film needed to throw in some T&A. If you want to complain about T&A go complain to your mommies, “Mom, that evil JJ guy made this part of my body hard again, by flashing some boobies!” as you point to the genital area of your Kirk doll, to express your problem. Go ahead, but this argument is somewhat pointless.

The reboot has TOS based skirts to continue paying homage to the original series. All reflections of the time period, and the objectification of woman from the 60’s. Not because it is a necessary thing, but because it’s a nod to the original. Get over this. This is truly the argument of the virginal, not the whimsically clever or inquisitive.


Benedict Cumberbatch Does Not Look Like He’s Indian,
Because Khan Is Based On An Indian; His Last Name Is Singh!



Neither did, listen to the name people, use your “hooked on phonics” RICARDO GONZALO PEDRO MONTALBAN Y MERINO - He was born in Mexico to Castilian Spaniards. Montalban is nowhere near Indian in descent. Not at all! While Wrath of Khan is by far, my unadulterated favorite Trek film, as it is for many purist fans, I actually thought he was too over-the-top as the villain. But I still loved him for his poetic ovations just the same.
Cumberbatch was simply a pure villain; I could care less if he actually looked like he was Indian.

Most people have never referenced Khan as Indian at all. They simply reference him as an amazingly cunning adversary to Kirk. Cumberbatch pulled all of this off, in spades. He demonstrated a stout and distinct blasé attitude. Almost passive aggressively displaying, “Do whatever you want to me, you can’t hurt me, I’m smarter, superior, and I’m going to win!” In his stoicism; from context, he obviously would place himself at someone’s mercy if it meant saving his crew. He almost has the same misunderstood interpretation parallel to MAN OF STEEL’s Zod.

Fanboys are suffocating, trapped in their need for old versions and perceptions, wanting to see the same damn thing over and over again.

I’m a purist fan. I love the original. Yet, I’m happy to see a different interpretation that was not what I’d expect.

The only real argument here that I would say should be debated as a weird plot point by the writers, is simply, “Why would Khan place his people in torpedoes?” That’s pretty much what I would want clarification of in the film. That was an obvious state of plot issue. What is called in the industry an “Action point” something that happens every 10 pages of script, to elevate or create drama, action, an explosion, a plot twist of some sort. It’s a weird one, but not one that ruins the film. Khan isn’t Sci-Fi Jesus, he obviously made a few mistakes, otherwise, he would have won.


Kronos versus Qo’noS...



I grabbed my friends when this popped up and yelled at the screen too, I’m sure a lot of us did…”Hey! They misspelled Qo’noS! Oh Well…” That’s as far as I cared. Me? I look at this as a Klingon version of the spelling versus a Terran version of the spelling. Could they have written it on the screen in Klingon lettering (KLI pIqad) then morphed it into English in the familiar spelling, followed by an English translation, sure! That would have been fine; but not really a necessity, and cumbersome. I can understand this as an argument, but this is a nitpick, and that’s pretty much it. Even if a slip of the mind by the writers, and was an unrealized misspelling, it doesn’t hurt the movie at all.

Minor Note: If you turn the subtitles in the Blu-Ray on, it also spells it "Kronos".

If you’re geek enough to know some Klingon, or have played word games in Klingon (I do) then you already know that there are other examples of traditionally spelled words using the “Q” that have been interchanged in the series and films with a “K”. Probably because someone made a typo, and they just decided to rectify it. Ka’plah and Qapla’ are examples of this.
Moving on.


Underwater Enterprise...



This has gone as far as trying to get research engineers to explain why a realistic situation like this wouldn't work. Which first of all is pretty much incorrect on a variety of levels. He has a few points right, sure, but it's hubris to presume his own view as absolute, especially in the presence of historical facts. We can argue a variety of plausible situations that make this believable and realistic, but that is not necessary. I could argue this from a physics standpoint toward a realistic, not just believable point of view. I’ll be starting my Ph.D in Physics next year at Columbia GSAS (something I decided to go back and finish), but this need not be a pissing contest of credentials. In the end it’s Science Fiction. While the physics and feats of engineering needed to make such thing real are phenomenal, it’s not impossible.

Why don’t we make arguments against Warp Travel? A hypothetical bubble surrounding an object in space and time, created by a warp field, that collapses in the rear and expands in the front of said object; propelling it at faster-than-light speeds. We accept a ship that is traveling space, shielding itself from explosions matching Supernova tonnage (tonnage in the octillions, that’s 28 zeros folks…). But we of course argue when a craft of such extreme engineering feats goes under water? Please go F*** yourself with your pitiful argument.

Random Note: You guys do know that we have ships that can go underwater right? They've been around since the first one was designed in 1850, and popularized in warfare during World War I. OK, just making sure.

It’s not at all implausible that a ship that predominantly uses a ridiculous variety of force fields in the form of "shields" could easily withstand the pressures of the “water”, let alone a ship created 300 years from now, in general, designed as such an engineering marvel.

I've seen the other arguments people have made rebutting the plausibility of the Enterprise under water; stating we don’t know the chemical composition of the water, etc., etc.. Sure, that’s one way to go, but I don’t need that argument to go against this extremely lame excuse for not liking this movie.

Let me explore this a little more, with a slightly apples to oranges argument that didn't go crazy into detail over the pressures of compounding depths with mass displacement. Voyager (VOY). Voyager went into Fluidic Space and didn't really provide any arguments or issues. Here we’re talking about a compositional fluid that is organic and arguably denser than liquid water. Granted, Voyager was much more advanced then the Enterprise as a Science vessel, however, the show pretty much let you accept the fact it could exist in this space without being crushed by the pressures of a universe completely made up of fluid. Why?

Because it’s Sci-Fi people! Why get this stupid over a simple argument.

The real argument here is “How did the Enterprise get underwater undetected?” Since we don’t see it arrive, we have to speculate the alien civilization was no where within view of a ship (that size) coming down, which is of course hard to swallow. But to be honest, who cares!!! It was a wonderfully grandiose scene that gave us scale for the ship, coupled with the orchestrated music, to deliver an epic piece of visual story telling.


Into Darkness...



This has become a whole other animal unto itself. Let me make it simple…
It’s a subtitle, the colon is not necessary as the title is not a form of grammar being used under normal structural conditions In a sentence. It’s a piece of font art. So it can be capitalized, or not at all. There are valid points as to why this should not be capitalized; however this is one of those arguments that I look at from a very distinctly negative point of view.

People who use the “Grammar Nazi” argument to attempt at pointing out an issue with a typo, a perceived grammatical issue, and/or their perception of a misused piece of punctuation; are the signs of people with weak arguments. People that need to nitpick to validate some form of an argument against someone else. It’s the “Discredit this guy!” argument.

Everyone, me included, get sucked into arguments at one point or another in our daily lives. Whether those arguments are debates with simple banter, or heated disagreements. We psychologically will use persuasive clauses to support our claims to our points of view. To either convince the opposing person to our point of view; or to cause the opposing person to lose the argument, and be perceived with less validity for their points of view. We even will go as far as reductio ad absurdum in our ventures into persuasive clauses to make any point toward our claim (the general point of this editorial-rant). I’m writing a different article about the “Lies Comic Book Fans Tell” (commutable to Sci-Fi fans as well, to all fandom really) where they’ll make up, or "fake-it", toward persuasive clauses just to win an argument. Internet Slappy-hands.

My point here is simply, make a case in your persuasive argument based on your desire, need, or agenda, without the need to use someone or something else to validate those desires and needs. You’re argument is stronger this way, and is not petty. If you’re argument is not strong enough, just accept you have no argument. Don’t let petty human nature get the better of you. If you simply don’t like something, say you don’t like it. Don’t try and diminish the argument to a stupid issue over a grey area in English Lit., 101 because you dislike this movie. There’s nothing wrong in saying “I don’t like this movie...” there is something very wrong in saying “I don’t like this movie, because Wikipedia says that the “I” from “Into Darkness” should be lower case…boo those damn writers, and boo Abrams!” this just makes you look stupid, and have nothing at all to really say for yourself. To a degree most of the people that use this form of persuasive reductio ad absurdum are mindless lemmings.


Was He Khan? Was He Not Khan? Who The F*** Is He!?



This is among the dumbest of the arguments against the movie. It’s born from rabid fans themselves prior to the film releasing, in the usual fan frenzy of presuming to know what the film makers are going to do, or should do. This is a problem born of the internet culture all of our fandoms have lived within for a long time. It’s not the film makers fault that insane fanboys went crazy with every tidbit of information they could find online; looking for random character name clues on imdb, trying to figure out who’s the villain. This is simply a fanboy frenzy over one tidbit of info that drove them mad when the reality of what was on the screen broke their fantasy.


Breaking the Prime Directive...



This is among the easiest to rebut, why? I already said above this is purely based on TOS. People may want to argue this is all about Trek…No. This is based on TOS. Meaning we get to see Abrams interpretations of the haphazard nature of Kirk and his crew, experiencing a variety of known scenarios (to the audience) differently in Kirk's expected future history; as it unfolds. Not only do we get that aspect of Kirk, we get an alternate timeline version of Kirk to boot. Kirk virtually broke the prime directive in every episode, and in the films. To him life was more important than a guideline, which is what he treated Starfleet directives as; a guideline. If you don’t understand this about Kirk you really can’t call yourself a Trekker, to which I’d say “Get The F*** out of my house!”

The real argument here is Spock himself arguing about the Prime Directive when he himself is in the Volcano. This is easy to argue, it’s simply a break in the understanding of logical and critical arguments by the writer.

I could speculate that it’s not a mistake of the writers understanding of logical arguments. But simply his subtle way of starting to show a pattern of behavior that Spock is undergoing which is not at all logical, eventually leading to the most argued point in the film, his crying out “KHAAAAN!”

If any of you follow Orci's work, you'd know the man can write logical and critical thinking circles around the most avid and keen of mind. Chances are he may have dumbed this down a bit too, to make it approachable and more mainstream worthy. There is nothing at all wrong with that. We should want to embrace more people loving our fandom, it means more money into the pockets of those in control of giving us more. If they can't attract a wider audience, why should they make more!?


Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!!!



This is the one argument I have made myself that at first made no sense to me. Because my main point was simply, Zock lost his mother, his people, and his planet in the first film, and he really didn't show emotion then; even though Spock Prime argued the contrary. When I first saw this in the theaters my reaction wasn't actually the same as most fanboys, which were raging. I was actually glad, because to me it was a great way to tribute the original from the point of view of an alternate timeline.

After seeing the film again, of course, many more times with the Blu-Ray; I could see all the breadcrumbs the writers left in terms of how Alt-Spocks character is developing, on the human side. From the very opening of the film, his willingness to sacrifice himself; to the scene where he momentarily mind melds with Pike (beginning to understand fear, loss, sadness, and loneliness) before he died. We had already seen a break in his psyche in the first film, when Kirk pushed his buttons.

This film demonstrated a lot of turmoil in Alt=Spocks life allowing him to grow emotionally. Many Trekkies simply refuse to accept this…

Here is my final set of points. I've pretty much broken it all down, I’ve been realistic with unrealistic issues. Here is what it all builds up to saying.

This is not a movie for the Trekkie/Trekker fans…Not by a long shot!



Leonard Nimoy voiced his thoughts toward Trekkies/Trekkers, if they didn't like the movie (while appearing on SNL):












"...To not like it would make them dickheads!" These films are this franchises Lazarus pit. It has returned life to a graying and dying property that has held on for dear life. I don't expect people to not ever have gripes on or voice their opinions, but this is ludicrous to say the least. We should be extremely grateful for gaining our fandom back. Even if you don't like these films. The door is being opened for a new generation of series, and more entries into the franchise.

Abrams has given Trek a fresh start. These films may have Trek DNA, but it is for everyone. Not just for the petty squabbling Trekkies. A group of people that would only want a permanently antiquated and troublesomely boring variation of these characters; characters we’ve seen before. This is a new timeline, a new set of alternate personalities. I’m surprised Bad Robot didn’t make Spock more human (which is what I would love to see more of). Possibly because Abrams didn’t want to transition so quickly, causing most fanboy minds to explode.

I have another set of articles in the works talking about the realities of minority vs majority when it comes to genre films. In the end, STAR TREK (2009) and STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS (2013) are more financially successful and more critically acclaimed than all of the Trek films in the past. In some cases than a few combined!

In some odd and strange way I’m pretty certain that a fandom such as the Trekkie/Trekker community is unhappy because this was “theirs” and now it's everyone else’s ("Ours"). The counter-culture has been made to exist for all; it’s no longer just a community of Sci-Fi geeks (the socially awkward) laying claim to this amazing franchise. It’s been designed to appeal to everyone.

The ramifications of a young mind witnessing Abrams Star Trek, who may have never seen TOS or any other Trek series, and films, is immeasurable & far reaching.

I am frankly tired of reading propaganda taken to another level, by the media, trying to feed the frenzy of a group of selfish people that only want Trek for themselves. We see this in all fandoms, but I do wonder if this is more of a problematic issue in the Trek communities. If you ask Shatner, he’ll say “F***ing Trekkie fans are crazy!” He said it to me & my mother when I was 7, meeting him for the first time; he said it to me again in 2005 while working with Star Fest in Denver. He's said it in various ways in his books. He yelled it out in Dragon*Con in 2011 (I was present, and it was hilarious), with a line of people wrapping around the block in downtown Atlanta.

Into Darkness was an amazing film, period. It was a great entry into the Star Trek franchise, and it continues to breathe life into a fandom that may have only continued to exist in a few currect video games otherwise. The fanboys and gals making the arguments above into pure reductio ad absurdum are wrong.

Normally I’m objective and try to be as PC as possible, but this is a rant against a group of people that could potentially be the smartest fandom out there, yet are acting like the dumbest group of people I've ever associated with.

This concludes my Editorial-Rant…


Comment, share, tweet, argue, flame, bitch, moan…You’ll still be wrong, but I respect the rights you have to your opinions (Trolls I will just erase). You’re Sci-Fi fans (among comic book fans) you’re allowed to be a little crazy! @EmanuelFCamacho
DISCLAIMER: This article was submitted by a volunteer contributor who has agreed to our code of conduct. ComicBookMovie.com is protected from liability under "safe harbor" provisions and will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. For expeditious removal, contact us HERE.
11
LIKE!
127 Comments
1 2 3 4
Govenator - 9/13/2013, 6:55 PM
i liked the movie
ndwwrestler2 - 9/13/2013, 6:58 PM
I laugh when Trekkies complain about these movies. I hope they all get more Trek movies with the qualities of the Star Wars prequels. That would be so funny.
ndwwrestler2 - 9/13/2013, 6:59 PM
At least the quality of 1&2.
MegatronLP9 - 9/13/2013, 6:59 PM
I'm tired of fans bitching and crying, period.
marvel72 - 9/13/2013, 7:00 PM
but i thought the movie was good,even though wrath of khan is better.
MrCBM56 - 9/13/2013, 7:00 PM
This is my favorite film of 2013.
MrCBM56 - 9/13/2013, 7:02 PM
I just sometimes laugh at the Hypocrisy of some fans. I mean, Nolan brought a new take on Batman, people love that. Snyder brought a new take on Superman, people love that. Abrams brought a new take to Star Trek and people freak!
Pending - 9/13/2013, 7:03 PM
The Khaaaan scene didn't make sense. Khan had nothing to do with Kirks death, Admiral Marcus was the cause of all the chaos. Movie was enjoyable but still stupid as hell.
ndwwrestler2 - 9/13/2013, 7:07 PM
@BeanzReilly Actually remember after the Kirk and Co. for Missles switch, Khan took over and fired on them , and that caused more damage to the ship, which Kirk had to fix.
seamuskeaneart - 9/13/2013, 7:08 PM
here was my problem with the movie, it was basically "space seed" and "wrath" combined, if you had seen them then there wasn't that much new to it, and if you hadn't seen them then there wasn't much point making them that similar.

Spock being upset for a Vulcan i get because of the Pike mind meld, but I dont get why he was upset at Kirks Death at all, I mean they have only known each other for a few years in this universe and even at the beginning of the movie they are not friends, when spock dies in Wrath of Khan, you care because we knew these characters had a history, it meant something when spock dies!

Also why does he even scream Khan!, it was Peter Wellers Character that damaged the ship which caused Kirk to enter the chamber and die.

harley2011 - 9/13/2013, 7:09 PM
The trekkies arguing saying this movie sucks are no different than the comic good dorks on this site, who think something like a live cartoon like the Avengers is even on the same level as something like TDK.
Tainted87 - 9/13/2013, 7:11 PM
I'm a Star Trek fan, and this was probably the best movie I've seen all year.

Could it have been better? Absolutely.
Am I worried about that? Hell to the no.

A lot of people, my brother included, hated the fact that Kirk is brought back before the movie ends. My brother (the real Trekkie) actually wanted the series to move on to TNG territory. But anyway, this was an almost entirely self-contained film that didn't set up a third movie to follow in the Search For Spock's footsteps. I appreciated that.
Mike89 - 9/13/2013, 7:13 PM
As much as i loved the JJ Abrams trek movies. Ive always been more of a Star Wars fan. Whether the new Star Trek movies follow the Standards on what Star Trek is "supposed" to be doesn't bother me at all. Star Trek was a dead franchise before the JJ Abrams came along.
Maximus101 - 9/13/2013, 7:14 PM
You tell them! Into darkness was amazing I already bought that shit on Blu ray
cmay13 - 9/13/2013, 7:17 PM
pretty soon we'll have star wars fan boys complaining that J.J. Abrams is destroying that franchise. If only everyone could be like the great Nolanites and praise everything he ever does
ndwwrestler2 - 9/13/2013, 7:24 PM
@McGee As much as I like Old Khan, I like New Khan more.

Swiftsword777 - 9/13/2013, 7:27 PM
Shit was way to long to even think about reading . However cheers for the effort
Pending - 9/13/2013, 7:30 PM
Yea take it out on Khan the guy who was enslaved by Marcus and trying to save his people, not the guy who was really behind it all. Makes sense.
WaltWoodpeckerWay - 9/13/2013, 7:32 PM
I did enjoy this movie but it felt kinda like a rehash of WOK I wish they told more of a new original story
TheIncredibleHulksta - 9/13/2013, 7:32 PM
This movie was mongoloid friendly so I hope people enjoyed it. It was a remake of the best Trek movies ever made; and you can say Trekkies are just irritable piss tanks (and I slightly agree) but there's also the fact that the original Wrath of Khan had this crew who had survived thick and think together, they had bonded and became best friends. So when Spock dies at the end, you feel sympathy for Kirk, because he had literally lost his best friend.

This new universe is one movie in, the first movie had Kirk and Spock at eachothers throats for most of the movie, then this movie starts and Kirk is still pissed at Spock. So you can tell these two haven't quite become friends yet. Then, Kirk dies and Spock pretends like he's lost his best friend. How could he? So far the two seem to hate eachother more then treat eachother like friends. If I was Spock in Into Darkness and Kirk died I'd probably high five Scotty and be like "Yo bitch, this ship is mine now haha"

I will agree Trekkies are over reacting. I will also agree that this is a BAD Trek film. Still better than Nemesis, Insurrection, Generations, and The Final Frontier; but it's also not nearly as good as First Contact, A Voyage Home, An Undiscovered Country, The Search For Spock, and (of course) Wrath of Khan.

At the end of the day everyone can bitch and complain, but guess what? I don't need to watch Into Darkness again, nor shall I want to. If I want to see Wrath of Khan again; I have it on VHS, DVD, Blu-Ray, and it's also on Netflix.

Trekkies are wrong; but so are you.
CyberBishop - 9/13/2013, 7:33 PM
I enjoyed the movie to be honest.. Screw the trekkies.
efcamachopmp - 9/13/2013, 7:35 PM
@Mcgee that is quite possibly the best and only real gripe I can totally agree with and it never even crossed my mind.

@havenless ? I'm not after any prize money. I write to write...pretty simple.

@godofmischief I'm not a big fan of 3D myself. It gives me migraines, and anything 3D done in post, as opposed to being shot in 3D, with a production design around the 3D concept, is probably going to suck in 3D.

@ndwresstler2 That would be hilarious!

@firgosaurus if you read it you'll come to "why" very early in the article.



MrCameron - 9/13/2013, 7:36 PM
To me, this was the most dissappointing movie of the summer. Not as bad as Trekkies make it out to be (oh hell no) but dissappointing nonetheless.

To me, the problem with the film was that it felt like a huge missed opportunity; there were no consequences of Khan's actions and the ending, with the magic blood and Khan being subdued, felt like a huge cop-out. If this is an alternate Star Trek universe, then take advantage of that and go where no Star Trek has gone before (pun totally intended). Make there be lasting consequences that carry over to the next movie(s), kinda like Nolan's Batman trilogy (no I'm not a Nolanite; just using his movies as a reference). Khan should have had the impact on the Enterprise like the Joker had on Batman, leaving them battered and defeated at the end setting up their triumphant return in the third.

*Rant over*

Good article though.
AlanDT91 - 9/13/2013, 7:37 PM
Trekkies...
How to politely tell someone to STFU
TheManFromMars - 9/13/2013, 7:38 PM
These movies are what got me into Star Trek.
efcamachopmp - 9/13/2013, 7:44 PM
I think honestly a big problem here is that the studio actually tried to deliver something the fans wanted. The fans were a bit nuts on the 2009 film, and Abrams actually listened to them. He brought in a character the fans almost all universally wanted in this film with Khan. I would definitely like to see them hit new territory. We'll have to see where they go from here. They're successful enough to continue making more films.

ndwwrestler2 - 9/13/2013, 7:45 PM
@Beanzreily You mean the same Khan who fired on there ship after he got what he wanted, which caused the death of his friend? Yeah, honestly I'd be P.O'd too.
efcamachopmp - 9/13/2013, 7:45 PM
@Mcgee Yes! two of my favorites occur in VOY "Year of Hell"

chrispunk28 - 9/13/2013, 7:47 PM
@MCGee
DetBullock - 9/13/2013, 7:48 PM
It's not about not liking it because of being trekkie, it's about not liking it because it's badly written and shallow.
BillyM67 - 9/13/2013, 7:49 PM
I really liked both movies and I've been a Star Trek fan since the original series. With that said, I would really, really like the next movie to have a completely original story line. And as far as Abrams is concerned, if this is the quality of film he can make for a franchise he kind of liked, I can't wait for his take on Star Wars, a franchise he loved!
Zuriel - 9/13/2013, 7:53 PM
McGee is completely correct. It isn't a re-imaging of Trek because it claims not to be. The movie in 2009 went to the trouble of setting it up as an alternate timeline that splits when Nero interferes at Kirk's birth. And since Kahn was frozen nearly 300 years before, (as stated in Into Darkness) he would look and act the same.

But... this is Trek and his difference in appearance could easily be explained with some kind of mambo-jumbo. The problem is the writers were too lazy to explain themselves.
efcamachopmp - 9/13/2013, 7:56 PM
In the end it's not about loving or hating this film. It's about being honest and saying, "I don't like this" and moving on...versus trying to ride someone's D*** using stupid arguments, like the ones listed, and credited as the biggest online debates.

I expect there are a lot of folks that dislike the film with a variety of valid points why the film didn't resonate with them. That's expected.

I'm just calling people out for being stupid.

Another argument I've seen but didn't add to this piece; the argument that this movie was made to be dumb for dumb people? That's a dumbass copout by people who are trying to be high and mighty, those people can remain in their little worlds. If you don't like something, don't watch it, don't buy it...move on. Don't try to insult people that do enjoy it.

I expressed this in the article, it's entitlement and validation, that is no longer apparent. This is no longer for a minority fandom, it's a mainstream sci-fi film for a much larger audience to enjoy. Trekkies will have to learn to deal.
Zuriel - 9/13/2013, 8:02 PM
I can even explain it myself in what could have been a 10 second scene. Spock Prime and Nero didn't intercept their own time line, but entered an all ready existing alternate reality. That is only one of several possibilities I have come up with to explain this lazily written silliness.
DetBullock - 9/13/2013, 8:08 PM
"Because it’s Sci-Fi people! Why get this stupid over a simple argument."


This is one of the most facepalm-worthy statements in the article.

First: "Science fiction" isn't an excuse to fill stories with any stupid thing a writer imagines, or an excuse for badly written characters, deus ex machina abuse, plot holes, et cetera.

Second: Science fiction at its best tries to put imaginary things on what we don't know yet about science and tries to keep the "poetic licences" to a bare minimum (a lot of writers of the golden age that codified sci-fi as we know it were scientists after all).
I know that most sci-fi writers nowadays are people that came out of literature/cinema classes but at least trying to get the basic laws of physics (you know, we already launched spaceships in real life, apart from articial gravity and warp drive we know a lot of aspects of how spaceships should work) and try not to violate the less basic ones in a way that's too blatant shouldn't really be that difficult.
They don't even need to go out or buy books, they only need to use google.
JediPhilosopher - 9/13/2013, 8:11 PM
Spock is really my biggest complaint with this new series. I'm fine with the actor playing him. But the ongoing relationship with Uhura and his over-emotional-ness is too much. He's not even Spock any more! I can watch this for entertainment, but I find it difficult to do so when it craps on the characters.

After all, my number one rule is still:
Thou shalt not get the characters wrong.
JediPhilosopher - 9/13/2013, 8:15 PM
I think it was Star Trek that made Snyder and Goyer think it might be okay to change the character of Clark Kent and Superman if they just change his background story. The question they should ask themselves is not "How" but rather "Should we?" and the answer is "NO!"
Pending - 9/13/2013, 8:15 PM
"This is not a movie for the Trekkie/Trekker fans…Not by a long shot!"

Oh here comes Old Spock from TOS to tell New Spock about how dangerous Khan was in TOS.

If that is true they should avoid things like that. It's lazy writing and shameless fanservice.
cj5590 - 9/13/2013, 8:18 PM
Making a more mature movie would be preferable. One that had in depth societal commentary, and one that takes an actual stance rather than listing why both sides are correct. A movie that takes its audience seriously without the need for force boobs and eye rolling humor or feigned 'fan service.' A bit of education wouldn't hurt. Just make a goddamn good movie that strives to be a good movie FIRST.

No one seems to care that a Schindler's List, or Citizen Kane-esque may never again see a wide release
Cagefighterkip - 9/13/2013, 8:27 PM
I didn't dislike it because of continuity. I didn't dislike it because it's not exactly like past Trek. I disliked it because it was poorly written and muddled and had plot holes you could fly the Enterprise through.
1 2 3 4

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.