Again: This is NOT Star Trek!

Rating: 1/10 (8 May 2013)

First let me say that i expect a ridiculous high rating at IMDb (right now, higher than Gandhi, Ben-Hur, Rocky, etc., because all these movies only have a tiny fraction of the awesomeness THIS brilliant masterpiece of epic filmmaking has...*cough*) for this one as well because most of the 'awesome beyond believe' - reviews were done by payed rating agencies!
J.J. Abrams' v(er)(i)sion of Star Trek has absolutely NOTHING in common with the ideas and visions of Gene Roddenberry. Abrams' abilities of story telling are based on two recipes: 1. luring the audience with questions but never giving the answer, 2. it stops after 40 min.. According to the motto, one fool can ask more questions than seven wise men can ever answer, Abrams' stories are therefore the pure exploitation of the curiosity of the audience, leaving you disappointed and empty, because all you got was a patchwork of 40 min pieces, connected by stunningly dumb and unrealistic cliffhangers without any satisfying end. I know that there are many Abrams fan boys out there who like Abrams' 'Lost'- style of storytelling, but folks, it's NOT always like it was for you at school: if you don't understand something, it doesn't mean automatically, that there's something meaningful going on! If there are plot holes, inconsistencies, stupid dialogs, too much pretty people doing too much stupid things and too much action & lens flares in your eyes, then, sometimes, the movie is just plain bad, and nobody understands what's going on, believe me!
Into Darkness is visually (CGI) intriguing which might be the only reason for the targeted audience (8-16 y.o.m) to score that flick as awesome. BTW, Abrams' put some new lenses in his cameras, (almost) no flares anymore... The character development is reduced to action figures in space with every thinkable cliché (dudes can be categorized as cool, cute, nerdy, romantic, tough, chicks are hot, dudes outnumber the chicks which causes some rivalry anyway...) which looks like a cast for a boy/girl group thing. As you might expect then, all there is about equipment, wardrobe, technical details was not designed to be appropriate or functional, but rather to look good & cool somehow. Every story ever written for TNG, TOS is by far more ambitious than this crap from the 'wouldn't it be cool if'-department here.
I do not understand why Paramount decided to reboot the franchise in that way. At least it must have been obvious to them that you can't make a TV series with this reboot and Jar Jar Abrams, which literally would have been 'Lost' in Space.
Let's hope that this reboot thing will only last a couple of movies with 3-4 years intervals AND let's hope that someone at Paramount has enough brains to make another Star Trek series in the sense of Roddenberry and all the true Star Trek fans out there...