It wasn't the best, but I didn't realize it sucked. I loved Karl Urban's call for a fresh screenplay next time, for sure: http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/08/03/s…

Maybe it just didn't suck.

Sure, I've seen better movies, but we're talking about a star trek movie, so within that subset you have to consider the competition.

I liked it.

Two words: maudlin Spock.

I liked it too

It sucked because there was zero character development. It sucked becacuse the entire spirit of the franchise has been crushed. It sucked because we want to see cool space shit and it ended with a fucking foot-chase on EARTH. It sucked because they completely forgot about the Klingons. It sucked because LENSE FLAIR.

I'm pretty sure it sucked because of shitty writing, which they tried to cover up with Spocky Spockisms, Shatneresque swagger, and an admittedly awesome impersonation of DeForest Kelly. None of that was enough to fill in the gaping plot holes and ridiculous storyline. But it was enough for die-hard Trekkies to get a nascent tingle with every past series reference, so it wasn't reviled as much as it should have been.

Yes. Dick Cheney dreamscape.

I liked it and scores of 87 and 91 on rotten tomatoes

Man, so glad I didn't bother. Most "big" movies out there today seem to suck, I don't waste my money anymore after "Prometheus" (blEH!) let me down.
Fuck you, Hollywood.

It didn't. One of the most fun movies of the summer.

Not as good as the first one, but didn't suck.

I liked it well enough, gaping plot holes notwithstanding. I am, however, becoming already weary of this whole alternate timeline with Vulcan gone and through which we'll see every original Star Trek episode re-done thing. I'm ready for them to skip to the fix where the timeline is put right, and then the TNG reboot happens...

i did not like it. and my first thought was that it lacks heart. its glossy, slick, and fast...and heartless.

Uh. Lifetime Trek person. Nerd Credentials: TNG > TOS > DS9 > ENT > VOY; Picard > Sisko > Kirk > Archer/Janeway; Spock > Kira > Riker > T'Pol > Chakotay; Geordie > Scotty > O'Brien > Trip > B'Lanna. I'd rate the movies but that's enough.

Star Trek Into Darkness didn't suck and made perfect sense in the context of the first film. Not a single Star Trek film except for Wrath of Khan and sections/instances within Undiscovered Country, First Contact and Nemesis were particularly deep. The films, unlike the shows, are generally big bombastic boom-boom-boom theatrical romps. Both of JJ Abrams's films set out to do that and they pulled it off. Is it the best Trek, or science fiction? Hell, who cares? I wasn't expecting 2001, Children of Men or Elysium. I expected the homages that we had in the first Abrams film and a big dumb happy Golden Retriever "Hurray, it's STAR TREK" film. The minute the Enterprise went to warp from the red planet with it's frozen volcano, the new familiar music swelled (I would rate this score as second only to the Khan and First Contact "Flight of the Phoenix" track), and the big silvery STAR TREK text turned sideways into view I turned off my brain, ate some popcorn, and strapped in to have fun and be fourteen years old again.

Star Trek Into Darkness didn't suck. It succeeded exceptionally well at what it set out to be.

Whatever Star Trek was is it not now. I fucking blows. Aside from that, it sucked.

It... haha. Ha.

I like how Star Fleet decides to lower their exceptions. Fresh out of cadet school? Here, have a first officer assignment, or be the chief medical officer. Admiral demote you? Whatever, you can still be Chief Engineer and if you quit, we'll give that job to a 2nd year ensign, why promote people by seniority at all. Hell, they'll even let you bring your speechless alien friend, dont even need to go to Starfleet, just give that alien dwarf a red shirt and get those engines running ... even tho we can transport people planet to planet thanks and have no need for starships anymore.

Planet about to blow up from a volcano? Lets detonate a cold fusion bomb, which wont prevent the eruption, but delay it. Magma will continue to build up over time to the point where the eruption becomes several times larger than what was forcast. The only way to prevent this is for the cold fusion bomb to reach the planets core. When the core freezes, the planet loses its magnetic sphere which protects the planet from solar radiation and all life then dies a few days later.

One of the major pieces of suckage in STID is that its creators act like retreading dialogue from an older, superior film but --ZING!-- switching the lines and business between the two characters is clever.

It's not clever, it's just a lazy attempt to get the audience to care about Kirk's fake-out momentary "death" in the film by reminding us how much we GENUINELY felt when Spock GENUINELY died in TWoK.

nothing sucks if benedict cumberbatch is in it.

no, bad editing. it just needed a tighter storyline and some serious editing of action scenes. there was a good movie hidden in there somewhere. Not great, just a good solid action movie with an undeniable awesome villain. Bitch and moan all you like about new Khan, unlike Montalban's single scene, Cumberbatch owned his lines and any footage he was in. Spock is more Spock than Spock, Bones and Scotty are hysterical and Kirk acts like Kirk. Sulu and Checkov are not as good, but mainly it's the script (I'm still goggling about injecting dead Tribbles without even pretending to explain it) and action overlong and poorly filmed.

Didn't bother with it, but the first one sucked because it was rebooted. There were some things that were neat to watch, but main suckage of the first one were because of the implausible plot and the weird characterizations. A few of the problems:

1. The only reason the Enterprise wasn't destroyed by Nero with that first attack was because Sulu didn't know how to release the parking brake. Really?

2. Uhura making bestiality jokes in Iowa.

3. Kirk had a cool swagger at times, but was Shatner's Kirk ever made a subject of ridicule the way Pine's Kirk was when he had the allergic reaction and his tongue and hands puffed up?

4. Quinto Spock decides to maroon Kirk and he just happens to land in the same neighborhood where Nero marooned Nimoy Spock. Please.

5. Kirk grabbing Uhura's boobs during the bar fight. Perfect for Porky's; wrong for Star Trek.

And like I said, I didn't bother with Into Darkness, but of course I did see the previews, and it looked like there was a scene of them falling through the space in EVA suits? But they already did that in the first one.

Nothing can fix bad writing, and the entire reboot is full of bad writing/storytelling - even by Star Trek standards.

Yes, most SciFi requires a certain suspension of disbelief - but the level necessary in this new franchise caused me to check out of the first movie even when I was stuck with it as the only option as an in-flight movie on United!

@24

1. It's called comic relief. Heard of it?

2. Bestiality jokes are always appropriate in Iowa. Have you been to Iowa?

3. He made himself look like a doddering old fool with the reading glasses and not knowing how to use the computer in Wrath of Kahn. Which isn't believable given "Space Seed" from T.O.S.

5. Uhura did a "sexy" fan dance in The Final Frontier.

This film is a lode for fans of cultural criticism and depth psychology. Colonial narratives, the Noble Savage, allegorical references to contemporary politics, White privilege, tech fetish, Cartesian mind/body dualism, PoC folks getting it on (cause they're like that) Oriental Despotism vs. European Romanticism, CIS dumbfuckery, James T. Kirk's libido.

It's all there.

Movies based on classic 60s shows from Batman to Bewitched are lugubrious.

@27

1. Yes, it was comedic, though not remarkably so. On that level, it was fine, but since this is the only reason they didn't end up in that first wave that got destroyed, and also, if I recall correctly, the only reason Kirk had enough time to figure out they were going into a trap, it's narratively problematic.

2. Not really the right thing for Star Trek.

3. Of course Kirk has been the butt of humor. In "The Trouble of Tribbles" there's that great scene where Scotty repeats all the insults the Klingon made about Kirk, and then deflates Kirk's ego when he says he didn't start the fight because of the insults to Kirk. Kirk's glasses in Wrath of Khan was humorous, but was a crucial detail that later gave poignancy to the film. He was never made ridiculous the way he was with the allergy. The only comparable instance I can think of is when Scotty walked into the doorframe in The Final Frontier, and that film was vilified.

4. I don't have a response for your point number 4.

5. Yes, and there has been sex and eroticism throughout Star Trek. But it was more adult in nature; the boob grab was juvenile. If you go in that direction, you might as well have crewmembers walking into each other's quarters while they're masturbating.

It sucked because, more than anything, it was cynical. Roddenberry was an original thinker, an optimist and humanist. Abrams is wanna-be that retro-fits everything from somebody else's ideas.

It sucked because Abrams has admitted he never watched Star Trek and never liked it and used that as a justification to shit all over fourty years of canon and carefully plotted lore in favor his own cheap gotcha plotting and fake "gritty" genre style.

It sucked becuase he leveraged the good will of fourty years of beloved character development and turned those characters into crass commercial humorless sexy teen soap-opera versions of themselves.

It sucked becuase his plots never make any internally logical sense and every plot contains idotic fan-boy checklists and that then have to be resolved with magical woo rather actual story development.

It sucked because it had no charm and no humanity.

I liked it.

It was fine. For a Star Trek movie.

@28

Darn, I'm not a fan of both cultural criticism and depth psychology. All the wordjunk you list sounds so fascinating

#31

Even more...even more because the real Star Treks underneath the swashbuckling, special effects and sexy actors, where about really good SciFy and a future social vision of humanity.

The technology of Star Trek, even the hoaky stage acted TOS is simply amazing. Things like Warp Drive, the medical technology, the transporter, the communicator. Many of these ended up having their analogs, or nascent versions...in the 21st century as the cell phone, quantum teleportation bio-scanners. Background technology was assumed (anti-grav, universal translators) and little mentioned, as you would expect in an advanced society. (Hey, everyone on the bus! I'm about to use my i-Phone, in 10, 9, 8, ... touching app screen now....).

The plots were superlative drama, among the most moving on television and similar in intensity to very good theater (this is in part why it was so believable with such simple and repetitive sets).

And I find these themes approached somewhat in contemporary works. The fantastic Miri the story of a planet where people die after reaching adulthood, leaving a race of gangs full of teens and children fending for themselves was recently aped in Come Out and Play (There is an Easter Egg referencing the TOS episode, but I'll leave you to find that!) Were there to have been no remakes, this and many other TOS episodes would have stood as among the most challenging, socially cognizant and exciting TV ever made. The same in no way could be said about any of the ST movies as they did little to advance and much to consume the Star Trek legacy.

As for J.J. Abrams current set of melees, one can only say that he came not to praise Star Trek, but to destroy it. Clearly he wanted to turn it from what an A.D.D. Gen M'er might deem "slow" into a glossy, fast paced CGI blunderbuss but there seemed like a psychopathic need to rip, tear and break each and every nuance much in the same way that tossing a pocket calculator into the monkey house at the zoo would end up with it being curiously examined, then banged on the floor and finally hurled against the wall and shattered into pieces.

He can't stand Star Trek.

He doesn't understand Star Trek.

And he never will.

I used to know what that meant and when I did I could develop an argument along those lines.

It didn't suck (though my first impression was not that favorable). It wasn't a great movie or even a great Star Trek movie, but it wasn't the worst thing I saw all summer either.

The big part problem with this one, as other have said, is that it featured caricatures moreso than characters. Even the characters that has some substance in the first film were flat in this one. The plot was kind of dull, too.

@36: which is the point. Technology is inherently uninteresting. Titilatting, maybe (like porno), but beyond it's initial presentation it cannot in of itself sustain a story.

#39

But bad, overblown or "illogical" technology kills SciFy dead, no matter how great the drama.

TOS continues to stand out not only for being "right" in the end, but for appropriately being treated as background to the drama. As stated.

Star Trek...go trek amongst the stars. GAWDDAMNIT!

Suck. The plotting and technology made no sense in a particularly "who gives a shit way" that was not made up for by character.

On the other hand, I enjoyed going to see it at a cinaplex in a small town I was stuck in after some pretty tasty tacos.

But with that much money, it amazes me how much better it could be with little effort and a little heart.

why is paul constant so threatened by anyone who questions the official usg conspiracy theory of 911?

It sucked because ultimately Abrams is a cynic and not an optimist. His view of humanity in the 23rd Century is that we haven't progressed one step beyond today: we still drive the same cars (for fuck's sake!), we still succumb to the same hormonal lizard-brain induced urges, we still harbor the same prejudices, and we still walk around with chips the size of red giant stars on our collective shoulders.

For all his personal faults, at least Roddenberry envisioned homo sapiens as progressing, evolving into something better than our contemporary selves - both technologically AND socially - and exhibiting a little bit of humility in the face of cosmic-scale uncertainties, whereas in Abrams' dunnish imagination we're just a bunch of Romulan Ale-swilling Bro's with shiny toys that go real fast and make pretty "ka-boom!" sounds, who possess the existential perceptiveness of sea mollusks.

@43

Because Paul planned it all while meeting with Dick Cheney and Karl Rove during a Mets-Cards game in Giulianni's luxury box at Shea Stadium in 1999 and now he wants to divert attention. He doesn't want anyone to suspect him, so if you ask him what the score at the game was, he'll pretend not to know.

Personally I could have maybe liked it (I did like some significant portions) except;

Ending the action with a fistfight ON cars having a car chase: not so good. I don't care they hovered.

There were way too many look backs with cutsie little changes. Almost every single one of them yanked me out of the movie. Not so much a problem with one or two but yikes there were a lot of them. Often at particuarly tense moments.

Also, although I like the actors fine: as noted by an earlier post That's one mighty young crew.

Other stuff relatively minor or I actually liked.

@44 FTW "[I]n Abrams' dunnish imagination we're just a bunch of Romulan Ale-swilling Bro's with shiny toys that go real fast and make pretty "ka-boom!" sounds, who possess the existential perceptiveness of sea mollusks. "

Big, dumb, and flashy, with no heart and hope. Pretty much the opposite of what Star Trek was. I like some of the things that JJ has done, Super 8 was a lot of fun, and Fringe had a lot going for it, but gods he just couldn't wrap his head around Star Trek

@43

He's part of the mainstream media. Threatened? I doubt it. He's just ensconced in a career where, on certain topics, you walk the party line. Plus there's too much gossip about Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman to occupy his gritty investigative journalism.

The problem is Star Trek isn't Star Trek. For some reason, after Roddenberry died everyone thought his idea (that had stood the test of time for DECADES) was no good and needed to be reinvented so everyone would enjoy it.

And that fact ignored some facts: Roddenberry was involved in Star Trek II TWOK (very popular movie) he was heavily invested in STTNG and that is still the most popular of all of the TV series.

Roddenberry's idea works when it's allowed to work. I thought the 2009 movie there was a chance but after this last fucked up film it clearly showed that without people who care about his vision the franchise is dead.

And WHY aren't we talking about how fucking BRILLIANT Karl Urban is at McCoy?!?!? He was the best cast of everyone. Simon Pegg: love him but he sucks as Scotty (they should have used Chris Doohan for that role, I mean he can easily sound like his dad and he even looks like him) Zachary Quinto is just a horrid actor, Chris Pine is just a cocky asshole in everything he plays and I'd rather watch an 85 year old bloated William Shatner play Kirk....

But Star Trek is better on TV. I hope that the reboot would have been the original characters but allowed to develop as more of the ensemble cast we seen in The Next Generation. Oh well,

@10 Phantom Menace had a pretty high score on Rotten Tomatoes when it was new, as I recall, although it's down to 57% now. Everyone freely acknowledges now that Phantom Menace sucked, but at the time, people tried desperately to convince themselves that they liked it… they just couldn't face the disappointment of acknowledging that the new Star Wars movie was as bad as it actually was.

This movie is headed the same way. An initial reaction of "eh… it's okay" eventually giving way to "it sucked, plain and simple." Bookmark your comments, all you "it was okay" people. Five years from now you'll be joining in the cultural consensus that it did, in fact, suck.

I liked the first reboot, because of the engaging cast, and a sense that the filmmakers were having fun with the material. Also, the first one bothered to have a story. But with the second one they were just going through the motions of making a blockbuster sequel, and it showed. There wasn't really a story, and rarely was anybody having any fun. It was, as some people have suggested, hollow and soulless.

The cheap use of "Khan" as villain was part of that. Khan as created by Ricardo Montalban is an iconic character -- Benedict Cumberbatch was not even trying to recreate that character, and they didn't use any story elements that required him to be Khan, so why was he Khan? Because they were hoping to coast on how much everybody liked The Wrath of Khan. But they couldn't do the story of epic revenge that drove the original movie, because they already did that in the first reboot movie. So what story was driving this movie? Hell if I know.

Reading all of the comments, I have concluded:

It sucked because it was not awesome.

"If you don't like it, pitch a better movie." No, that's the beauty of being a movie-goer, Bob Orci. YOU make the movies, and I deem them to be worthy (or not) of my $14 and 2.5 hours. ST:ID just didn't do it for me, and I don't have to be a screenwriter in order to hold that opinion.

Don't want "shitty" fans making you feel bad? Then you need to write a good movie to begin with. That's your job, remember? Not mine.

Although now that I've read the article, I'm intrigued by the idea that crypto-trutherism was driving the story, because if so -- it's quite telling that trutherism couldn't even make a compelling story in a fictional movie.

Although, looking at it in the context of people who can't admit to themselves how bad a movie really is, when they first see it and want it to not suck -- I remember being disgusted in the immediate 9/11 aftermath with how the American people were so willing to delude themselves into thinking Bush was a great leader, because they really needed him to be a great leader.

Trutherism is the flip side of that. Bush isn't a great leader anymore, he's now a criminal mastermind.

But both views avoid confronting the obvious truth: that 9/11 was caused by incompetence and the use of it to drive support for the Iraq war was cynical opportunism followed by more incompetence.

@44, 47

I really liked that, too.

Yeah, false premise. It didn't suck at all and was one of the few worth seeing in 3D.

Wait a second, I just noticed that the writer who criticized the fans and the conspiracy theorist are the same person, Bob Orci. But in the first link, the one about calling the fans shitty, Orci calls George W. Bush his hero. Isn't that incompatible with being a truther?

IMHO:

Sisko was the best captain, but Janeway was the one you really, really didn't want to get pissed off at you (and you had to work to get her there). To me Sisko always had to be that much more because he had to go/protect home; as the only active parent, he was always human and believable. For understated thunder, leaving the baseball for Gul Dukat is my favorite in the Trekverse. OTOH, a shakespearian actor speaking in metaphor...priceless (Paul Winfield was great).

I really enjoyed STID. I'm willing to suspend direct comparison to the previous series/movies because taken at face value they never happened. That's the whole point of a parallel universe, to look for similarities and mirroring events.

Peace

Just off the top of my head, it was the plotting and the writing. And maybe the editing. Okay, and probably the directing, too. But definitely the plotting and the writing. Most of the actors did a perfectly decent job with the material they were given, and the film itself was definitely more enjoyable on the big screen in 3D than it was on the small screen in 2D -- especially in the end credits, where they start putting the 3D to use. Best line in the movie: when Scotty (Simon Pegg) looks up at the guy who surprises him at the airlock/hatch controls and says, "You're big."

But seriously, I think you have to ask people who are new to Star Trek what they thought of it. There was just too much (badly) recycled material in Into Darkness it to enthuse longtime Trekkers.

If a script this convoluted, non-nonsensical, and il-formed became a movie without the names 'Star Trek' and J.J. Abrams connected to it, it would be classified with films like Battlefield Earth or Howard the Duck. If they didn't have the budget, it would have been straight-to-video.

I liked it. I thought it packed an emotional punch, was fun, and was genuinely happy to see a new Kahn story. It's just a Star Trek film, for chrissakes. Go back and watch The Voyage Home and tell me that Into Darkness is not an entertaining film.

Not going to ever see it again. Has lost everything the original series had going for it. Abrams admitted as such on The Daily Show that he didn't get Star Trek as a kid, and he has just shown he doesn't get it now.

Rather look for new good sci-fi than horrible remakes of classics.

I watched it a second time today with all the talk. ($5.00 I'll never get back from Amazon) Then for shits and giggles I watched what I have always considered to be the worse Star Trek movie of all time: Star Trek V. Guess which was the worse movie? That's right: Into Darkness managed to be worse than the movie with Spock's brother, God and the horrible directing ability of William Shatner.

So congratulations JJ Abrams: you suck worse than Shanter!!!

@63

Here's a ton of background stuff about Star Trek V. It's actually pretty interesting.

Two notable tidbits:

1. Shatner's original version had Spock and McCoy turning on Kirk and joining Sybok, but Nimoy and Kelley refused to play that, feeling it would have been untrue to the characters.

2. Shatner had Sybok riding a unicorn, not a horse, but Roddenberry nixed that.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star_Tre…

It did not suck - Cumberbatch. Mmmmmmm

@57 If "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," then maybe a senseless inconsistency is the gelatinous cube of conspiracy theorist minds.

@54 You just can't HANDLE the truth! ;^)

Star Trek V had a lot of issues and I always felt a tad sorry about it, what was wrong was not all on Shatner.

Shatner was to direct the first of the cancelled at the last minute episodes back in 1969. He had to wait a looooong time to direct on Star Trek.

Ask and ye shall receive:

* * * As Giant Robot and Collider report, Abrams has indeed confirmed that he’ll be too focused on the next Star Wars, and will have to step down from the Enterprise.

“It’s a little bittersweet,” Abrams said. “But I will say that I’m going to be producing the movie. Whomever it is that directs the film will be someone we all know is going to keep the cast and crew in good hands. I feel very lucky to have been part of it, and it definitely feels like the right time to let someone come in and do their own thing. We want to hire someone who’s gonna come in and bring their own sensibility. I’m very excited to see what comes next…” * * * *

---- JJ Abrams Officially Stepping Down From … (TG Daily)

Bonus ask/receive:

Lrrr: [Sighs] Now what?

Ndnd:* I send you out to conquer a planet, and all you bring is J. J. Abrams' face? [from Lrrr's "conquest" of Comic-Con]

Lrrr:** I thought you'd like it. You haven't even tried it on.

Ndnd: I might dress up in a face if you ever took me some place nice!

---- Futurama, season 6, episode 11, "Lrrreconcilable Ndndifferences," via J. J. Abrams - Futurama Wiki, the Futura…

*Ruler of the planet Omicron Persei 8, Watcher of Single Female Lawyer and Leno, Master of the Remote

**Lrrr's wife, Mother of Popplers, The Unimpressed

Oops. Move those asterisks up a paragraph.

@61 - I was happy to see a "new" Khan story too - right up till they ripped off the whole "ship in trouble - somebody has to run into the warp core - ship gets going again - victim dies of radiation" thing..I'm used to low-budget productions pulling shit like that but ripping off your own franchise? pffffft.

I cannot believe that you are paid as a professional writer, Paul. Features like this, which would be a cakewalk for a clever writer to write, are garbled, unfunny word salads in your hands lately. Too much Buzzfeed in your morning reading?

@70, well when you run out of pointless and endless action series and are faced with the possibility of having to write meaningful dialogue with the characters you've got to just take line by line from the 1982 movie. I mean there's only so far you can go with 9/11 trutherism and a thinly veiled GW Bush Bromance....

Watched the Movie last night and you are right, it did suck. Maybe the story line and I thought the acting was just unbelievable. I was not surprised that it was not good, as there is obviously way too much nepotism in Hollywood so the real talent is not there. They just don’t make good movies these days.

1. Kirk didn't evovle AT ALL from stupid-cadet-I-think-with-my-balls first. No progress.

2. The volcano scene = the volcano scene in Star Wars 3. Hellooo copy/paste

3. More Kirk slutting with twins aliens. Like you need that to be a real man -> see1

4. The super blood plot which was just there to resurrect Kirk at the end, since they are inversing who died and who lived form the original episode in an attemp to make it somehow looks original because the reboot is AU since Nero.
This is not original.
This is not a mega new consequence of the diverging point from the two realities.
This is just a convenient catwalk to connect all the dots of the copy of the old episode.

5. Kirk accepts Scotty resignation just to go illegaly bomb the guy who killed Pike. He liked Pike, okay, but he liked Scotty, Spock, Uhara, Sulu, Chekov, the captaincy, the Entreprise and not being in jail, a bit more; I think. Treason is a lifetime in jail. -> Kirk is not THAT dumb

6. The pursuit on Chronos which is copy/paste from Star Wars 1

7. Khan destroy a troop of Klingon but surrender to 3 pitifull humans and Kirk doesn't seems to find it weird -> Kirk is not THAT dumb

8. Carol Marcus in underwears. It's the 2nd movie, so we're going to up a bit the boobs-grabbing scene from the 1st movie. Yeah, not really-> this is so forced, like, haha, look the sex jok we made.
You're a geek? Stay a geek and don't try to imitate 'American pie'. It won't make you look funny, but like you're trying way too hard.

9. The space jump which is just a redoo of Star Trek reboot (2009) in Tron suits -> co-pyyyyying, hello!

10. The dumb speech at the end.

11. Star Trak without stars, space or Trek.

Where are the new civilisations?
The new lifes forms?
The (original) plot?
The good dialogue?
The witty comebacks?
The teamwork?
The innovation?
The uplifting feeling of boldly moving forward into the unknow (instead of stewing in our baser instincts dirt-side in a rehashed plot)?

J.J, sorry, you're still a good director, but the plot mega sucked. And the movie too.