>They gave no fucks about any of the science being
>even remotely believable.

Star Trek II was about a torpedo that you could shoot at a planet that would disassemble it, and then re-assemble it as an Earth-like planet, and Star Trek III hinged on Spock somehow getting caught up in the vortex and being re-generated as a rapidly-aging kid, who somehow stopped aging rapidly just because he was off the planet.

Star Trek IV allowed the crew to go back in time by, um, whipping around the sun really fast.

And let's not even get into the physical inconsistencies in the zero-grav scenes in Star Trek VI. Or into Star Trek V at all.

NONE OF THE SCIENCE IN STAR TREK IS REMOTELY BELIEVABLE.

Now, that said, there's plenty of room for hate for Star Trek Into Darkness. But not taking science as "seriously" as the rest of the franchise? I'ma go with.............NO.