The Klingon war and how it started seems a natural for the next movie. Definitely something fans could get behind and would have a chance for many action sequences.:thumb:

Way back when the Klingon's were the Trek's metaphor for the Soviets so in the Alt universe it would be fitting to see what would happen when the Federation ****s up their "Cold War" and it turns into a "Galactic Vietnam"

Was a big fan of DS9 once the Founders were discovered and started a war. Would love a darker spinoff new TV show about the war and maybe the Enterprise crew could kick it off with a movie. Maybe center around two bases right behind enemy lines (one Federation, one Klingon) with excursions to planets where control/occupation shifts regularly and tons of space battles! Would love to see the story told by both sides, and the Klingon culture/history is extremely rich enough to provide some great story telling.

I found this to be incredibly disappointing. I thought Abrams did a good job of Star Trek 2009, but I felt this movie tried to borrow too much from Wrath of Khan. I didn't really believe in the friendship between Kirk and Spock either, there was no real chemistry there for me.

<table id="showdowns" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr style="border: none;" bgcolor="#ffffff"><td colspan="2" style="border: none;" align="center">'Into Darkness' Vs. 'Star Trek'</td></tr><tr style="border: none;" bgcolor="#ffffff"><td style="border: none;" align="center" valign="top">http://boxofficemojo.com/images/mini..._poster_sm.jpg</td><td align="center" valign="top">http://boxofficemojo.com/images/mini..._poster_sm.jpg</td></tr> <tr style="border: none;" bgcolor="#ffffff"><td style="border: none;" align="center">33-Day Total:
$211,732,773</td><td style="border: none;" align="center">33-Day Total:
$224,564,055</td></tr></tbody></table>

Suprising. I've seen the movie twice, and enjoyed it both times. What held this movie back in your opinion, Dane? Is this Abrams losing his appeal, or was the movie just a lot worse than I thought it was?

International numbers make it a little more interesting.

Star Trek (2009) - Foreign: $127,950,427 (33.2%); Worldwide: $385,680,446 (not a 33-day number, this is total).

Star Trek into Darkness (2013) - Foreign: $201,700,000 (48.8%); Worldwide: $413,432,773

I don't think it was any one singular factor but multiple factors. Four years between movies was a real detriment to the franchise. The original reboot, even with a lackluster story and mediocre villain, brought life back to an all but dead franchise. Paramount should have fast tracked a sequel to be in theaters no more than 24 months after the original. That wait really killed any momentum they gained with reboot.

Also, as previously discussed, the domestic marketing was horrid. Paramount should have had Star Trek blazing constantly on Showtime, Spike, FX and even on CBS (like a Sunday Night movie of the week) for months in advance. Instead, they did nothing.

Also, the whole "Is he or isn't he" Khan thing really worked against them. If they would have just come out said "Yes, it's Khan!", then they could have had a different marketing strategy, which would have included better trailers, posters, etc. When it finally became known to audiences, most people were like "meh".

Finally, I think that intelligent audiences have cooled on Abrams and especially, Lindelof. The Lost debacle was bad enough (with even George R.R. Martin chiming in at one point saying he didn't want to pull a "Lost" and **** up the ending of GoT) but Prometheus was just a killer.

Couple that with the word getting out rather quickly that this film was more of a rehash than something new a fresh (alternate timeline, hello?) and it was just too many factors for it to overcome.

yea, i would agree with this. For whatever reason this movie just didnt "resonate" with audiences as much as the first one did. I also think the competition from competing movies was alot stronger this year than in May 2009. This summer has been loaded with popular flicks.

I still loved it. I had a big douchey grin on my face the whole goddamned time.

I know I'm in the minority, but I really hope I get more.

I agree with you on the marketing aspects of the film. Especially the "is he, isn't he?" stuff. But I'd made up my mind to see the thing as the credits for the first one rolled. So, it probably didn't bother me as much as it did others. Still, very weird.

However, I disagree with your statement about "intelligent audiences." Maybe you've cooled on Abrams and especially Lindelof (if you ever liked either of them to begin with). And maybe some of your friends have as well (maybe you're speaking specifically about "insiders" and people you know, in which case, I can't speak to those minds). But there are plenty of intelligent people who still enjoy their work.

George RR Martin has taken back some of the vitriol he spewed about LOST. Because he, like other "intelligent audience members" misinterpreted it.

And I'll also disagree that Into Darkness was more rehash than something new. There is certainly some rehash. I suppose there's enough for me to understand someone being turned off by it, but it's still minimal.

I'm with you, man. I loved it.

To me, comparing The Wrath of Khan to Into Darkness is similar to comparing Good Will Hunting to the fabled Good Will Humping.

I am sure I would derive plenty of "enjoyment and satisfaction" from the latter title and heck, I'm sure I (and many others here) would view it on multiple occasions. However, in no way does that mean that the stimulating storylines found in Good Will Humping come close to the Academy Award winning screenplay of which the it was erected upon.

TL;DR I thought Into Darkness was quite entertaining and do not believe it prevents anyone (even those who hated it the most) from watching/owning The Wrath of Khan

I agree.

But would you say that Into Darkness is not worth seeing because of Wrath of Kahn? Or would you say that Wrath of Kahn prevents (or should prevent) anyone from watching/owning Into Darkness?