Escape to the Movies: Star Trek: Into Darkness

[Xisin]

I wouldn't call this a movie "good" either...

This movie is GREAT and I wholeheartedly recommend you go see it now, screw whatever bob says and go watch it.

Why? Because it's fun without being stupid.

It's better than Iron Man 3 in every single way, the action is better, the cinematography is nicer, the climax is better the "twist" is better and if it wasn't for RDJ, this movie would blow Iron Man 3 so far out of the water that Greenpeace would have to bring a semi-truck to get it back in. THis is of course my opinion, so feel free to scream at your screen now about how I am wrong etc.

It's better than Wrath of Khan, it's damn well better than every Star Trek movie that came before it (in MY OPINION, bear in mind, I am not a Star Trek fan, nor did I never watch an episode of the Star Trek series).

Hell, I liked it better than most of the Marvel movies that came before it, including The Avengers (yeah yeah, I said Jehova, get your beards ready now). (I never read Marvel/DC comics either).

This movie was everything I wanted it to be.
A fun science-fiction action-romp with a likeable cast, great cinematography, a great score, good performances all-around, some throwbacks to the "original" even complete and utter dolts like me can understand and a good plot. Of course, this is far from being on-par with science-fiction classics, such as Moon and "2001", but then again this movie doesn't try to go that route.



(Also, why did Bob need to "critique" this movie and feels that revealing the "twist" is something he has to do, when in his Iron Man 3 review, he tiptoed around it, telling us how great the twist was, when, in all honesty, the "Iron Man Twist" is just as bad, if not worse than this movie's "twist".)

I'm on the other side of the fence. I think Bob gave this movie far more credit than I would have. I haven't seen Iron man 3 yet but for that movie to be worse than this one, Iron man would have to be a blank screen with a picture of a robot, drawn by a five year old, affixed to it by duct tape.

To give credit where it's due, the score was very good. I also thought the banter was fun and believable. Anytime the movie pushed the actors beyond "witty" though... The scene between Pine and Cumberbatch, the one shown partially in the trailers, is painful. Which is especially terrible because we all know Cumberbatch is a capable actor.

The plot is a mangled mess, with holes large enough for a semi to drive through. Even the action was lacking. Why did Khan pick Spock up and throw him onto the moving vehicle? He could have just kicked him off. Why did he watch him climb up the next time. In fact, why was Khan not shot by the Klingons? He was standing still, on top of what looked like a packing crate. The light effect they used for a lot of these shots was also really annoying. Not sure what it's actually called, but you know when it's really bright and the sun makes those beams of colored spots, why were those in most of the action shots?

The worst thing about this whole affair is that it is boring and predictable. About 15 minutes in, a little girl is saved. The method employed to do so saps any anticipation out of the rest of the film. Even Kirk's last hurrah is meaningless since we know he's in no actual danger.

Over all it was awful. Not trolls 2 awful, so congrats to it I guess.

Oh wait! Where's the diplomacy? It's a Star Trek movie, it is suppose to be in there. Kind of like Batman not showing up to a Batman movie.

 

[Kuro Serpentina]

(Notices the mention to "The Hangover part 3" at the end of the video)
In Other News: There are trailers for "Anchor-man 2" floating around... HAVE FUN~

 

[Idlemessiah]

Well this came off as very unprofessional. You're supposed to be a movie reviewer Bob, not a movie complainer. I want to see a review that tells me whether or not to see a film based on the coherence of the story, quality of the action / direction and the effort of the actors etc. I DON'T want to see a review that vilifies a film just because the director played loose with the source material. Look at how loose Iron Man 3 was, yet that warranted a review AND a Big Picture episode to tell us how you loved that twist.

We all know that Bob is a fanboy, but its gone beyond the point of being a little bit biased to just being:

"Don't go see this film! The asshole director changed a thing that I hold sacred! I don't care if you've never ever seen ANY Star Trek, it will ruin EVERYTHING for you!"

And letting that fanboyism into your reviews is like I said, very unprofessional. I'll be going elsewhere for my movie reviews from now on, although I expect this video will still get views if only from people want to listen to Bob jumping around the monkey cage.

Oh and just in case it wasn't clear, I enjoyed Into Darkness, rather a lot, particularly the radiation airlock sequence, very clever.

 

[Thyunda]

They did it because things look different from their perspective. Obviously.

The problem with writing super-intelligent characters is that they're not written by super-intelligent authors.

Having character perspectives is great, don't get me wrong. Khan flips out and attacks the Enterprise after the torpedoes blow because he assumes that his people were still inside, since that's what he would have done, given that he is just a wee bit of a spiteful bastard and not particularly concerned with the lives of his enemies. That's his perspective, and it's fitting that he makes that particular oversight.

But basic reasoning shouldn't be subject to perspective, particularly when you're dealing with someone who is supposed to be intelligent enough on his own to create new technologies decades in advance of the existing ones, and to do so in a scant few years starting from three centuries behind. It's not a question of perspective when characters make obvious mistakes that they should not have made in character.

It's just lazy writing. Obviously.

Technological superiority doesn't mean a superior understanding of people and how to deal with them. Otherwise you'd see a million less 'friendzone' threads on here. Imagine if the same brain that lets you put together a computer also lets you fully understand the desired sex.

And I don't see Khan's girlfriend anywhere nearby.

 

[Raesvelg]

Technological superiority doesn't mean a superior understanding of people and how to deal with them. Otherwise you'd see a million less 'friendzone' threads on here. Imagine if the same brain that lets you put together a computer also lets you fully understand the desired sex.

And I don't see Khan's girlfriend anywhere nearby.

Khan's an interpersonal and political genius too. He really is better at "everything". Still has weaknesses, of course, but it remains a plot hole.

As for girlfriends... in TOS, Khan seduces one of the Enterprise crew so thoroughly in a scant handful of hours that she follows him into permanent exile at the end of the episode. So yeah. Khan's got game.

Even leaving out material from TOS, however, it's pretty clear that Khan knew he'd be betrayed by Kirk, whom he'd only known for a few minutes. Yet for some reason he can't discern the motivations of the Admiral that he's known for years.

Lazy writing.

 

[Thyunda]

Technological superiority doesn't mean a superior understanding of people and how to deal with them. Otherwise you'd see a million less 'friendzone' threads on here. Imagine if the same brain that lets you put together a computer also lets you fully understand the desired sex.

And I don't see Khan's girlfriend anywhere nearby.

Khan's an interpersonal and political genius too. He really is better at "everything". Still has weaknesses, of course, but it remains a plot hole.

As for girlfriends... in TOS, Khan seduces one of the Enterprise crew so thoroughly in a scant handful of hours that she follows him into permanent exile at the end of the episode. So yeah. Khan's got game.

Even leaving out material from TOS, however, it's pretty clear that Khan knew he'd be betrayed by Kirk, whom he'd only known for a few minutes. Yet for some reason he can't discern the motivations of the Admiral that he's known for years.

Lazy writing.

Wait I forgot, how did we conclude that he didn't discern the motivations of the Admiral?

 

[Raesvelg]

Wait I forgot, how did we conclude that he didn't discern the motivations of the Admiral?

The part where he hid on Kronos. We've been over this.

If he understood that the Admiral wanted a war with the Klingons, then hiding out on Kronos is stupid.

If he didn't understand that the Admiral wanted a war with the Klingons, then Khan is stupid.

Since we can be fairly certain that Khan is not stupid, we must assume that the writers are stupid. As evidenced by the fact that the instant he's confronted with the situation, Khan has either worked it all out in advance, or he worked it out in ten seconds in the middle of a firefight.

It's a plot hole. Just accept it and move on with your life, it needn't interfere with your enjoyment of the film.

 

[darksakul]

No character development? Is Bob just so Anti-JJ Abrams that he refuses to see whats in front of him?

Spoiler

the space cowboy Capt Kirk learns responsibility, Spock learns how with his duality how to deal with humans emotions without betraying his Vulcan side. Nyota Uhura learns that just because Spoke does not express how he feels does not mean he does not care, Scotty learns to say "Fuck the rules" and trust Kirk, And McCoy hes is slightly more tolerant of space travel.

There is more character development in this one film that all 3 seasons of TOS. Yeah it does not top the Character development the 2nd 3rd and 4th Star Trek Films had, but that is 3 movies telling a bigger story than each film's smaller adventure can hope to carry.

And Bob get off your High Horse.

 

[felicia_angel]

Ok, now that I saw it and know the spoilers, I will say this:
It was good. It was not as bad as you made it sound. I was prepared to have a long rant ready, but I realized that what I said before was spot-on. You don't like Abrams. You hate Abrams and the new Star Trek for doing stuff that your nostalgia tells you the old one didn't. You think all of the stuff is retread, tired, and worn out, and went in knowing you weren't going to like it. It's not a surprise to me that you didn't. Worst kept secret or not, I personally enjoyed it, loved the use of Benedict Cumberbatch and enjoyed the whole thing. It was a good popcorn movie, a great movie to continue the series with, and did well with the material. It's not Wrath, but it's a good second movie.

 

[Dale Ware]

I'd say the movie was fine. Not best star trek ever, but it does well for what it has.

The full cast don't get used to good effect, but honestly, how many movies have 7 main characters who are influential for the entire movie? Thinking right now of Fellowship of the Ring, where Gandalf, Frodo & Aragorn play key parts, the rest of the fellowship may well have been other people. Scotty standing up for his beliefs meant more to me than anything the characters i didn't mention in fellowship did...

my biggest issues are as follows, wasn't Admiral Marcus black in the first movie (maybe different admiral, i thought it was the same guy...) & Spocks hair was annoyingly flappy (thought it was a wig) in the chase scene near the end

(not being racist above, or not trying to be, but I kept thinking that the admiral wasn't admiral Marcus...)

 

[Xavier323]

my biggest issues are as follows, wasn't Admiral Marcus black in the first movie (maybe different admiral, i thought it was the same guy...) & Spocks hair was annoyingly flappy (thought it was a wig) in the chase scene near the end

(not being racist above, or not trying to be, but I kept thinking that the admiral wasn't admiral Marcus...)

Nope, it was a different admiral. Tyler Perry played a character named Admiral Richard Barnett in the 2009 movie.

 

[SethMorne]

No character development? Is Bob just so Anti-JJ Abrams that he refuses to see whats in front of him?

Spoiler

the space cowboy Capt Kirk learns responsibility, Spock learns how with his duality how to deal with humans emotions without betraying his Vulcan side. Nyota Uhura learns that just because Spoke does not express how he feels does not mean he does not care, Scotty learns to say "Fuck the rules" and trust Kirk, And McCoy hes is slightly more tolerant of space travel.

There is more character development in this one film that all 3 seasons of TOS. Yeah it does not top the Character development the 2nd 3rd and 4th Star Trek Films had, but that is 3 movies telling a bigger story than each film's smaller adventure can hope to carry.

And Bob get off your High Horse.

Bob doesn't say that there's no character development. He says that the character arcs that are in the film are basically retreads of the first movie. And I'm prone to agree with him.

Spoiler

In the first movie, Kirk is learning to deal with reining in his impulsive nature and become a responsible commander. Spock deals with his emotional side and logical side. The only thing I actually agree with you on right now is Uhura. And even then it's not really an arc, it's just a few scenes. Setup, confrontation (the conversation in the ship on Kronos) punctuated by the predictable: sentimental moment is over, let's shake the camera because something actiony is happening!

I also posit that if people saw the EXACT same movie with Michael Bay's name attached to it instead of JJ Abrams(might as well, since two of the three writers involved also wrote Transformers and Revenge of the Fallen) people would feel very different about the movie.

 

[Farthing]

This movie was really cute. A bunch of amusing callbacks to original series stuff, nice action sequences, and Pine acting in the Shatner-style for 2 hours. Watching this with a bunch of Star Trek fans, they were quite happy and amused to be served, we all laughed through it. Success as a work of fanservice there I guess.

As a work of science fiction in the grander scheme of things, I agree with Bob's assessment.

 

[Thyunda]

Wait I forgot, how did we conclude that he didn't discern the motivations of the Admiral?

The part where he hid on Kronos. We've been over this.

If he understood that the Admiral wanted a war with the Klingons, then hiding out on Kronos is stupid.

If he didn't understand that the Admiral wanted a war with the Klingons, then Khan is stupid.

Since we can be fairly certain that Khan is not stupid, we must assume that the writers are stupid. As evidenced by the fact that the instant he's confronted with the situation, Khan has either worked it all out in advance, or he worked it out in ten seconds in the middle of a firefight.

It's a plot hole. Just accept it and move on with your life, it needn't interfere with your enjoyment of the film.

Noooo but I already countered that point! If the Admiral DIDN'T want war with the Klingons, he'd have simply warned the Klingons of Khan's presence on their planet, and diplomatically ended the situation. However, that would require co-operation, and the military would lose massive amounts of public support if they ordered a pre-emptive strike against the Klingons at any point after this co-operative gesture.

It could also be that he was well aware of Starfleet doctrine and knew that any ship the Admiral sent after him simply would not fire without attempting to take him alive first.

OH yes, that's the other thing. Starfleet wasn't even militarised by this point - Klingon defenders would have destroyed the Enterprise if it had fired on Kronos (which was half the plot), so the only way Khan would have ever been in any danger at all would have been if the Vengeance showed up, and that was still being fitted out. Khan was playing for time by hiding on Kronos, it wasn't a permanent plan at all.


See. Too quick to call plothole. That makes perfect sense.

 

[Raesvelg]

Noooo but I already countered that point! If the Admiral DIDN'T want war with the Klingons...

But he does. And Khan knows this, since that's why the Admiral found him and thawed him out.

It could also be that he was well aware of Starfleet doctrine and knew that any ship the Admiral sent after him simply would not fire without attempting to take him alive first.

Given that it was just by the barest thread that Kirk didn't just torpedo Khan from 20 light-years out, that seems like more of a gamble than you'd be willing to take with your life. For that matter, he had to know that if the Admiral really wanted him dead, he could have just done the job himself. Also from outside of Klingon space. Khan knows this, because he designed the weapons to do it.

The only reason Khan didn't die in a rain of exploding Augment-corpsesicle torpedoes is because the Admiral misjudged Kirk. He surrenders because he realizes that they have the torpedoes (which will allow him to prove his story, and provide emotional leverage), that Kirk has almost undoubtedly disobeyed orders to attempt his capture, and that as such he can manipulate Kirk into doing what he wants.

Which is the kind of thing that you'd expect from Khan, except for the part where he had to be an idiot to get himself into that situation to begin with.

OH yes, that's the other thing. Starfleet wasn't even militarised by this point - Klingon defenders would have destroyed the Enterprise if it had fired on Kronos (which was half the plot), so the only way Khan would have ever been in any danger at all would have been if the Vengeance showed up, and that was still being fitted out. Khan was playing for time by hiding on Kronos, it wasn't a permanent plan at all.

Except that the Enterprise wasn't going to show up in easy range of Kronos. The entire plan was to show up on the border of the Neutral Zone and nuke the site from there. Klingons wouldn't even know that the Enterprise was firing on the planet until the warheads hit, and wouldn't know who did it for certain unless they got very lucky.

Like, by having the Admiral sabotage the Enterprise's warp core so that it would be left crippled on the edge of the Neutral Zone with a notoriously hot-headed captain whose mentor had just been murdered in charge. And there's little doubt that once the Enterprise had gone boom, there'd have been no actual record of the orders sending Kirk out there to begin with, or that they'd fired on Kronos at all. It would just appear to be a random act of aggression by the Klingons, which the Admiral would have fortunately stumbled upon in his dreadnought just in time to kill said Klingons and avenge the Enterprise.

Khan's goal of using Kronos as a base of operations for his terrorist attacks only works if he assumes that the Admiral isn't willing to pursue him there, which only works if he thinks that the Admiral isn't willing to provoke a war with the Klingons. But he does know. That's the entire reason the Admiral had him making advanced weaponry.

I repeat: The problem with writing super-intelligent characters is that they're not written by super-intelligent authors.

 

[OverlordSteve]

Well this came off as very unprofessional. You're supposed to be a movie reviewer Bob, not a movie complainer. I want to see a review that tells me whether or not to see a film based on the coherence of the story, quality of the action / direction and the effort of the actors etc. I DON'T want to see a review that vilifies a film just because the director played loose with the source material. Look at how loose Iron Man 3 was, yet that warranted a review AND a Big Picture episode to tell us how you loved that twist.

We all know that Bob is a fanboy, but its gone beyond the point of being a little bit biased to just being:

"Don't go see this film! The asshole director changed a thing that I hold sacred! I don't care if you've never ever seen ANY Star Trek, it will ruin EVERYTHING for you!"

And letting that fanboyism into your reviews is like I said, very unprofessional. I'll be going elsewhere for my movie reviews from now on, although I expect this video will still get views if only from people want to listen to Bob jumping around the monkey cage.

Oh and just in case it wasn't clear, I enjoyed Into Darkness, rather a lot, particularly the radiation airlock sequence, very clever.

If you had actually paid attention to the video, you'd know that Bob disliked Into Darkness because it has references to the original Star Trek that serve no story purpose and actually undermine the quality of the story on top of a lackluster plot.

If you want to rationalize completely dismissing a dissenting opinion about something you liked by pretending it's just a fanboy opinion, do it in your head. Don't come on the forum and try to play the "unprofessional" card while completely misconstruing someone's point of view for your own purposes.

 

[Farther than stars]

Because if I am to discourage the existence of discriminatory language, I must then shun the people who use that language and thus perpetuate its existence and the associated stereotypes. Choice doesn't really come into it.
And I'm not saying the mob always knows more than the individual simply because it's a mob. But it does have more credibility in that absence of valid arguments on the side of the individual. Nothing about that comment was productive and its only possible result was alienation and division, both of which should be discouraged in order to maintain a stable society.

A stable society would not exist without alienation and division. That's how it encourages people not to stray outside its boundaries. So I don't see why making visible what is already there should be discouraged. Stability is also no concern of mine: I'm interested in making things better not preserving the status quo, and that goal isn't served by censorship.

Because if I am to discourage the existence of discriminatory language, I must then shun the people who use that language and thus perpetuate its existence and the associated stereotypes. Choice doesn't really come into it.
And I'm not saying the mob always knows more than the individual simply because it's a mob. But it does have more credibility in that absence of valid arguments on the side of the individual. Nothing about that comment was productive and its only possible result was alienation and division, both of which should be discouraged in order to maintain a stable society.

A stable society would not exist without alienation and division. That's how it encourages people not to stray outside its boundaries. So I don't see why making visible what is already there should be discouraged. Stability is also no concern of mine: I'm interested in making things better not preserving the status quo, and that goal isn't served by censorship.

Status quo and stability are two fundamentally different concepts. The status quo simply means that everything remains the way it is. "Stable" (in the sociological sense) means an absence of factors which would hamper human survival, such as war*, hunger and natural disasters. A degree of this kind of stability is a requirement for the advancement of society, because it creates the environment in which science can be done and in which technology can be developed.
But even disregarding your comment about stability, would you explain to me exactly how your comment was productive towards the betterment of society? I'm sure you don't wholeheartedly believe in the anti-censorship argument or otherwise you would be advocating child pornography as well.
And "making visible what is already there" doesn't apply here, because we've already established that the Jewish stereotype is a weak one. Therefor not only is it not true (the stereotype never 'was there' in the first place), it also misinforms people more than it informs them.

*Which is dependent on division and more likely because of alienation.

 

[Idlemessiah]

*le snip*

If you had actually paid attention to the video, you'd know that Bob disliked Into Darkness because it has references to the original Star Trek that serve no story purpose and actually undermine the quality of the story on top of a lackluster plot.

If you want to rationalize completely dismissing a dissenting opinion about something you liked by pretending it's just a fanboy opinion, do it in your head. Don't come on the forum and try to play the "unprofessional" card while completely misconstruing someone's point of view for your own purposes.

Reading through my previous post I seem to have missed out completely the fact that I have seen no other Star Trek content than the 2 re-boot films so all the series reference stuff went over my head (except the big internet meme ones like the Vulcan-hand and the big-bad guy's name).

As for Bob, he likes Star Trek, he doesn't like Abrams. Abrams changes something Bob likes but has no control over. Bob rages and uses his movie review series to warn people off seeing a decent early-summer blockbuster. To be fair, Bob has stopped me seeing movies in the past because his rants about them are so profound, and I probably would have avoided Star Trek if I had watched this video beforehand.

At the end of the day, Bob is a butthurt Trekkie and his rant has likely scared off a good number of people who would have otherwise enjoyed this film.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Because if I am to discourage the existence of discriminatory language, I must then shun the people who use that language and thus perpetuate its existence and the associated stereotypes. Choice doesn't really come into it.
And I'm not saying the mob always knows more than the individual simply because it's a mob. But it does have more credibility in that absence of valid arguments on the side of the individual. Nothing about that comment was productive and its only possible result was alienation and division, both of which should be discouraged in order to maintain a stable society.

A stable society would not exist without alienation and division. That's how it encourages people not to stray outside its boundaries. So I don't see why making visible what is already there should be discouraged. Stability is also no concern of mine: I'm interested in making things better not preserving the status quo, and that goal isn't served by censorship.

Because if I am to discourage the existence of discriminatory language, I must then shun the people who use that language and thus perpetuate its existence and the associated stereotypes. Choice doesn't really come into it.
And I'm not saying the mob always knows more than the individual simply because it's a mob. But it does have more credibility in that absence of valid arguments on the side of the individual. Nothing about that comment was productive and its only possible result was alienation and division, both of which should be discouraged in order to maintain a stable society.

A stable society would not exist without alienation and division. That's how it encourages people not to stray outside its boundaries. So I don't see why making visible what is already there should be discouraged. Stability is also no concern of mine: I'm interested in making things better not preserving the status quo, and that goal isn't served by censorship.

Status quo and stability are two fundamentally different concepts. The status quo simply means that everything remains the way it is. "Stable" (in the sociological sense) means an absence of factors which would hamper human survival, such as war*, hunger and natural disasters. A degree of this kind of stability is a requirement for the advancement of society, because it creates the environment in which science can be done and in which technology can be developed.
But even disregarding your comment about stability, would you explain to me exactly how your comment was productive towards the betterment of society? I'm sure you don't wholeheartedly believe in the anti-censorship argument or otherwise you would be advocating child pornography as well.
And "making visible what is already there" doesn't apply here, because we've already established that the Jewish stereotype is a weak one. Therefor not only is it not true (the stereotype never 'was there' in the first place), it also misinforms people more than it informs them.

*Which is dependent on division and more likely because of alienation.

You misunderstood me: what you called "Division and alienation" is already there in society (for example in property laws of which division is the very essence), not the jewish stereotype. So making comments of that nature does no harm. Or any nature, in my opinion. But child pornography is not a comment, is it? I don't see how taking pornographic pictures is any kind of speech or commentary, so "censoring" it isn't censorship but something else entirely which can easily be justified on a separate basis.

I don't accept the argument that anything that threatens a stable society should be shunned: that sounds like something that would have been argued by those against the French revolution and republicanism which followed. You sort of contradicted yourself by saying I was threatening the stability of society by making comments and then claiming stability is about human survival, which obviously cannot be threatened by comments.

 

[OverlordSteve]

*le snip*

If you had actually paid attention to the video, you'd know that Bob disliked Into Darkness because it has references to the original Star Trek that serve no story purpose and actually undermine the quality of the story on top of a lackluster plot.

If you want to rationalize completely dismissing a dissenting opinion about something you liked by pretending it's just a fanboy opinion, do it in your head. Don't come on the forum and try to play the "unprofessional" card while completely misconstruing someone's point of view for your own purposes.

Reading through my previous post I seem to have missed out completely the fact that I have seen no other Star Trek content than the 2 re-boot films so all the series reference stuff went over my head (except the big internet meme ones like the Vulcan-hand and the big-bad guy's name).

As for Bob, he likes Star Trek, he doesn't like Abrams. Abrams changes something Bob likes but has no control over. Bob rages and uses his movie review series to warn people off seeing a decent early-summer blockbuster. To be fair, Bob has stopped me seeing movies in the past because his rants about them are so profound, and I probably would have avoided Star Trek if I had watched this video beforehand.

At the end of the day, Bob is a butthurt Trekkie and his rant has likely scared off a good number of people who would have otherwise enjoyed this film.

Whether or not you or any given audience member knows who Kahn is doesn't change the fact that his reveal adds nothing to the movie in the context of its own universe.

You can make as many irrelevant assumptions about Bob's supposed Secret Agenda as you want, it doesn't change the fact that he's justified his dislike of Into Darkness with a well-explained and valid criticism of the movie.

And really? His "rant" has supposedly "scared off" potential fans? Bob's job is to express his opinion on the movies he's seen. We're free to listen or not listen to it as we please, and he can't "scare off" anyone who doesn't choose to be scared off in the first place. You might as well say they nobody should ever review movies, lest their opinions artificially influence people's viewing habits. It's ridiculous.

At the end of the day, Bob's feelings on Star Trek as a brand and J.J. Abrams as a director are irrelevant, because he's still presented a valid criticism of Into Darkness. And all you have to try and rebut said criticism are irrelevant facts and assumptions.