I’ve seen that another Trek fan has posted that most people who don’t like Star Trek Into Darkness just haven’t accepted that this is an alternate timeline. I’m going to have to disagree.
My issues have to do with its problems as a movie, regardless of its timeline (or even that it’s Trek). If you like the movie, that’s fine, I’m glad when people like Trek, but don’t dismiss my criticisms with “Oh, you just don’t like it because it’s not Shatner and Nimoy.”
I don’t care that it’s not Shatner and Nimoy (Pine is a fine Kirk and Quinto is a great Spock), and I certainly don’t care that it’s set in an alternate timeline. I wrote an alternate timeline Trek novella for Simon & Schuster. I enjoy alternate timelines, and rebooting the franchise in an alternate timeline was the right decision.
But when I read a book or watch a movie, I want believable characters with relatable emotional arcs, as well as consistent plot points that evolve organically as complications develop from the actions of the characters. Into Darkness misses the mark on much of that.
Major plot points driving the story made no sense to me. Hiding the Enterprise underwater from a civilization without space travel? How about just keeping the ship in space? Hiding cryopods in photon torpedoes? Relying on a madman frozen for three hundred years to design new weapons? Harrison fleeing to the Klingon homeworld? Why would anyone do those things, make those decisions? If there are sensible reasons for those choices to have been made by any of these characters, I’m missing them. And it had little of the fun of the prior film, which made it easier to gloss over the first movie’s own plot holes.
Please continue to enjoy the movie in spite of my comments, I’m not trying to dissuade you. I’m just emphasizing that I’m not making the shallow complaints of a disgruntled fanboy, these are legitimate story-based critiques of the film.
UPDATE: Star Trek Beyond was a ton of fun and had a tighter script.