Not sure.

Let's see:

Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father

It's kind of like Fallen Enchantress: Legendary Hereos

Star Trek: Into Darkness

I'm a Trekkie dinosaur, the sort miffed by the first JJ iteration ... what irked me the most was the "comic superhero-ization" of the TOS characters (especially James T. Kirk) and the re-write of so much that not even the "new timeline" can explain, such as the idea that Chekov and Kirk's careers in Starfleet started virtually simultaneously.

Yeah, Shatner's Kirk was probably rightfully mocked for Shatner's wooden acting ... but however much of an egomaniac Shatner might be, at least his Kirk was believably human, fallible and flawed.  From TOS into the movies, we got the sense that while, yes, he was a young Captain, he learned some things through experience (and some of that through trying the wrong thing first and learning a lesson the hard way) that the Academy could not teach.  As he earned rank and prestige, his arrogance cause problems, too -- he nearly destroyed the Enterprise in the first Roddenberry-Trek movie when the Enterprise's engine imblance (due to the Enterprise being rushed amid refit to intercept V'ger) created a wormhole and the Enterprise was on a collision course with an asteroid in the wormhole; Kirk's attempt to deal with the situation would have resulted in the Enterprise being destroyed and the actual captain of the Enterprise, Decker, whom Kirk usurped to regain command of the Enterprise countermanded Kirk's order and saved the ship.  Similarly, in The Wrath of Khan, Kirk disregarded Starfleet regulations -- as cited by Spock's protege, Saavik -- in regards to encoutering a starship, even a 'fellow' Federation starship, when communications have not been established, resulting in devastating damage to the Enterprise and a lot of fatalities aboard the Enterprise, including Scotty's nephew.  Shatner's Kirk made a lot of mistakes, but was able to recover and deal with them ... there was a real sense, for me, that Shatner's Kirk was a real, believable character who forged his own destiny.

The Kirk portrayed by Chris Pine in the 2009 film was, by contrast, infallible and seemed to have "superhero"-esque predestiny/fate regardless of the complete lack of experience earned by Shatner's Kirk.  He was fated to be right in his arguments with more experienced officers including Pike and Spock despite having zero experience.

Is character development any better in Into Darkness?   For those of us die-hard "Trek dinosaurs" psychotically loyal to the original characters, would we find Into Darkness more palatable than Abrams' first Star Trek film?

I saw it and enjoyed it. I mis-remembered some of the original lore, which made some of it confusing. 

But the action scenes and character development throughout was engaging. Spock has always been a hero to me (and Gene Roddenberry / Majel Barrett in real life).

Good movie, good times!

I was a trekker since the beginning of the next generation, and I enjoy what they have done to the series.  It's an alternate timeline, kirk has different experiences and had to grow up faster.  Kirk is a lot younger, fresh out of the academy.  He's flying by the seat of his pants, staying true to the old vision of the character.  He is a bit more of a boyscout though.

I'll probably have to see it again.

KHAAAAAAAAN!

Not giving a damn about what Trekkies though is exactly why it shouldn't be called Star Trek.  Its very reminiscent of what Alan Emrich did to Master of Orion III.  JJ Abrams is Star Trek In Name Only, just as Quicksilver's Master of Orion III is Orion In Name Only.

Star Trek was not meant to be a plastic action series, it had a niche following and its abandoned it.  That's like creating some ritzy sparkling wine and calling it champagne.  Abrams' Star Trek is not better than Roddenberry's.  Popularity != better.  Its lost its origins and its touch, it lost its human-ness and has become basically a comic book set in space with flat, two-dimensional characters.  Shatner's Kirk was much more complex and had a lot more depth ... I don't blame the new actors, I blame the writers and Abrams for insulting slapping the name Star Trek on it.  Why the hell did he not just create something new, the way he wants, and give it an original name instead of taking a well recognized name and slapping it on something that bears little resemblance to it?

My only gripe about the first movie was this. Why in the world would you send your entire fleet off to wherever and leave a home world defenseless. That to me makes no sense. Other than that it was a pretty good movie even if it did venture far off the original.

I still haven't seen the first one out of fear of being alienated, because none of the previews of either of Abram's Trek films even look like Star Trek to me.

Exactly my point, it seemed impossible at the time. Only a fool would make such an assumption and you would think in that day and age the lesson would have been learned. Nothing is impossible.

Can someone say of this new film is a bit more...I dunno..."mature"? If the characters/story are more compelling.

I'm obviously a ST fan but I do have common sense and went to see the 2009 movie expecting nothing more than a cool sci-fi action flick with the Star Trek label stuck on it as a formality. And I was still disappointed. Plot was senseless (not that most other ST films are much better in this regard), characters were bland, Kirk was a generic "action hero", the Nokia product placement was in atrociously bad taste, scenes like Spock/Uhura making out and Kirk needlessly firing at the doomed villain's ship made no sense and were just inserted to blindly adhere to the pattern of a Hollywood blockbuster (we need a kissing scene, we need a shooting scene). Rehashed Star Wars scenes and filming style...

I really have trouble understanding why so many consider this film good (either as ST or generally), especially compared to the previous movies not counting the likes of Nemesis which is merely the precursor to the decline carried on by 2009. The first 5 minutes felt great but ultimately ST09 couldn't even provide the basic entertainment of a cool space battle (like Wrath of Khan or First Contact). 

Is there any chance I might enjoy Into Darkness? Has the financial success of 2009 given them leeway to come up with something more engaging?  Is there less lens flare at least? 

Space battles need sound, it would be strange to sit in complete silence just watching how ships fire, although in space there is no(t enough) matter that can spread sound but still, it would be funny to see a giant space battle and hear nothing at all it is an unfortunate thing, reality is too boring for a film I think..