NeverarGreat said:

Bingowings said:

For me Star Trek (2009) is practically identical to Star Trek into Darkness and not that different from Star Trek : Nemesis or Enterprise.

For me Prometheus is almost exactly the same film as Alien Vs Predator (2004).

And yet critically and in terms of popular opinion the reaction is wildly different.

My only conclusion is that trends are not set by quality but by some market led opinion swing. I highly expect the Star Wars sequels will be as bad as ROTS but as popular as Skyfall, just because the markets have decided Star Wars is to rise again.

Watch this space.

While Star Trek '09 has a similar conflict to Into Darkness (stop the evil baddie who has it out for the Federation) you are right that the reaction is very different because of expectation. This is very important. If The Empire Strikes Back told the same story as Star Wars, I believe that Star Wars would never have become a multi-generational phenomenon. Empire needed a darker tone that took risks with the material and actually advanced the story of the original instead of repeating it. Because of this Empire earned its place alongside Star Wars. Into Darkness is very similar to Star Trek, except that it doesn't introduce the crew, establish the universe, or explain the backstory of any important character, things which the original was required to do. So Into Darkness is a movie without a Prime Directive, coasting along on name recognition while systematically making nonsense of things which held the franchise together for almost fifty years.

That's why I really wanted to deny Cumberbatch being Khan. I think that movie would have been so much better if the whole plot centered around Harrison trying to take down Starfleet from the inside out.

I thought there were going to be scenes of him planting bombs in international HQs, grand speeches given over the air, and all that stuff.

I think that could have made for a much more interesting story, if you ask me.