Has Star Trek Into Darkness really been succesfull? The follow-up to reboot of the Star Trek franchise has taken in roughly $60 million dollars more than its predecessor - although it also cost $40 million more. So from the financial point of view everything is more or less honkydory on the Enterprise.
Personally, though, I was a bit dissapointed with the movie, especially in regards to a point where the predecessor had been extra-smart: the countless allusions to the old Star Trek movies. They seemed - in my all too humble opinion - unnecessary and took the viewer more out of the story than contibuting anything valuable to it ("KHHHAAAAAAAAN").
Hence I agree wholeheartedly with alias Dr. Leonard McKoy's statement, made in an interview with IGN (via io9), in which the good doctor wishes the franchise to head into more original territory with Star Trek 3:
"What I really believe we should do now is strive for originality. Because in Star Trek Into Darkness we took one of the most revered and loved adversaries of the Enterprise and put him in there, and did a story that had all of these wonderful nods to films from the past, and episodes from the past. I really think that what we should do from here, in my personal opinion, is strive to be original. Strive to be something different and new. You know, let's not forget that Star Trek as envisioned was about space exploration. And it would be really wonderful to harness the spirit of that and apply it to the next film, so that we do something different than a revenge-based picture."
What do you think? Should the franchise shake off the burdon of the old movies and try to stand more on its own feet? Let us know below!