The Instigator
miss_spock
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Duncan
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Star Trek: Into Darkness - Good or Bad Sequel?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/6/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 646 times Debate No: 38567
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

miss_spock

Con

Star Trek: Into Darkness is the second installment to JJ Abram's reboot of the much beloved sci-fi series. Some critics enjoyed the film, others didn't. I believe the film overall was a big flop for multiple reasons and felt it did discredit to JJ Abram's first Star Trek film. Any Trekkies that disagree?
Duncan

Pro

While not an outright Trekkie per say, I am educated enough on the topic, and I don't think that Into Darkness was a bad sequel. I suppose I have to provide some reasoning. Remember that the rebooted Star Trek is an action film series, not a science fiction. The plot holes in the story are there because the story is fast paced, and no longer focused on the Trekkie demographic. There were references enough in the film to satisfy the fans, and my parents, both Star Trek fans since their childhood, were satisfied with just the references, preferring the action film rather than the slow method of the tv show. (They also went crazy over the tribble.) But the mention of my parents is only to show that this film pleased all its target audiences; the Trekkies got their famous Khan scream, the action fans got an exciting sci fi, the women got a love story and the kids got Scotty (and trauma from the Khan head crunch) If you attack the plot holes, remember that the original show was slow, with poorly directed fight scenes and was largely about technology and sex with aliens. The films of Star trek, specifically Next Gen, were disappointing and poor because they tried to mix these factors. This isn't a bad sequel, by any standard. This is an ungraceful sequel. But it's still enjoyable, and I'll be waiting.

Duncan.
Debate Round No. 1
miss_spock

Con

Firstly, I should say my main argument is based on how the sequel didn"t compare at all with JJ Abram"s first Star Trek film. Abram"s first film was so successful with not only new fans but with trekkies as well because its alternate timeline from TOS Star Trek allowed Abrams free artistic license. He could create a fresh origin story while still keeping ties to the original series and "Old Spock." He brought in a not only a new villain and story plot, but he redefined the reboot universe as a lot grittier to please modern audiences. What genuinely disappointed me about ST:ID was how instead of coming up with more new plots and villains, Abrams borrowed from the Wrath of Khan in a way that sometimes looked "sloppy" to me. Maybe some fans appreciated the nod to the old series, but by the time Spock was yelling "KHAAAAAN," I just couldn"t take the movie seriously anymore.
And don"t get me wrong, I understand how action films tend to run full of plot holes for the sake of keeping the story moving fast. The plot holes didn"t really bother me except for Khan"s "super blood" bringing Kirk back to life in less than five minutes of screen time, when it took a whole movie to get Spock back from the dead (The Search for Spock.) That is another example what I perceived to be a "sloppy" riff from the old series. I really feel if Abrams had stuck to what made his first movie a success, ST:ID would have gained a better reception from the fans.

(If you can believe it, I can count another three major reasons for my disappointment with the film, but I"m going to keep them for round three. And I really enjoy debating with you by the way! I love ranting about nerdy stuff as you can obviously see.)
Duncan

Pro

I think you'll find some of your assertions to be incorrect here. The alternate timeline allows J. J. Abrams to retell stories already told. The first reboot film is in fact Star Trek Nemesis, which is Shinzon, who bares a striking resemblence to the Romulan leader in the reboot, also hell bent on revenge against the Enterprise. Both films are reimaginings of the previous series' films. The blood revival is used because most films do use some sequel bait, but its never as bold as this. The original Star Trek was much slower a pace and could treat each film as a larger episode, something that the films which must be condensed enough for anyone who's never seen the prequels to understand most of the story anyway. And is pleasing the fans really the most important thing here? Iron Man 3 surprised and angered fans expecting a Mandarin, but non-fans enjoyed the film a lot more than the previous ones. The fans aren't the only people seeing the film, and J. J. isn't a slave to how they want the film to be. I'll see you next round.
Debate Round No. 2
miss_spock

Con

miss_spock forfeited this round.
Duncan

Pro

Oh well. I have made my point. Into Darkness was similar to the first rebooted film because J. J. Abrams knows the masses don't like change. He made an action film while keeping enough references for fans and keeps the relationships and feels up too. This is a good sequel.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by miss_spock 3 years ago
miss_spock
Lol, I guess I should have picked a more contreversial topic. Ironically I have alot of friends that liked the film, but they aren't Trekkies, so they don't understand how much JJ Abrams poorly ripped off Wrath of Khan.
Posted by Proletariat 3 years ago
Proletariat
Unfortunately I agree and I'm not a fan of playing devil's advocate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.