I was thinking of Star Trek Into Darkness and how it's pretty much a remake of the most popular Trek movie Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan (1982).

Why did they remake it and not instead do an original story? The first in the rebooted series (Star Trek 2009) was an original tale and worked fine, even being regarded as one of the best of the series even by old fans, so why pretty much do 'Wrath' again with some new aspects here and there?

I have nothing against them introducing Khan sooner or later (seeing as the new Trek takes place in a pararell universe and the character probably exist there), but not only should they have waited a little but they copied quite a bit from 'Wrath' and it came off as unoriginal (not to mention they crammed the movie full of so much stuff so that it became overloaded and messy).

Did JJ Abrams and/or the studio not have a lot of faith in the new Trek franchise this time around or was it something else?

It probably owes more to the "Space Seed" episode, and even then it's a bit of a stretch to say the film was a remake of that episode or Wrath Of Khan.

Yep, it's more a revision of TREK history, prior to the famous 5 year mission, and little like a remake of ST 2. It was during the 5 year mission that they encounter Khan in the episode "space seed" - from which the idea of reviving his pals is taken.

But yes, why use Khan anyway, when something original might be preferable for the new movies.

Because apparently as many movies as possible must be a remake, reboot or adaptation of a television show (preferably from the 70's). Or some combination of the above. I'm starting to think it's a law or something.

Why remake The Wrath Of Khan?

That was my whole problem with it.
That aspect tanked the whole thing.

The producers came to /tele/ and asked "What is your favorite Star Trek?"

The results were Wrath of Khan.

So they remade it and called it Into Darkness.

Because it worked. It's the best Star Trek film

I'd suppose a few reasons.

2nd Star Trek movie -> 2nd Star Trek movie

Since Trek 2009 literally rebooted the Star Trek timeline, they could redo the episode and show how it played out in a different way, which it did.

Bringing Khan into the picture demonstrates that, changing history or not, some things are inevitable.

Because since Wrath of Khan became a hit with the fans, every franchise filmmaker swears their sequel will either be like "Wrath of Khan" or "Empire Strikes Back". And the makers of Star Trek Into Darkness are clearly creatively corrupt. I feel they should have stuck with the Admiral storyline with the guy trying to make Starfleet more militaristic than space exploration.

Because they hired hack writers who don't know what an original idea is.