posted
Depends on your criteria for "entertaining" if you're using the word "most."
It's not like there's a lack of movies every year with flashy explosions, action and quippy one-liners. This movie would have worked just as well if you changed all the names and uniforms instead of creating a generic action movie and then overlaid it with Star Trek symbols to suck in the Trekkies, cause that's all it was. There really wasn't anything at all about this movie that made it Star Trek other than the use of names and costumes.
And there are plenty of us who would like to see them make a GOOD Star Trek movie, and not just a good action movie. We gather for coffee on Sundays.
Now I know how Londo felt at the end of B5. The Grand Old Days of the Republic were great, but in trying to recapture them, they burned their society to the ground.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I grew up on 90s Star Trek, not the 70s. I actually rarely watch the TOS show because, well, most of it isn't really my cup of tea. But I love a lot of the movies, and there are individual TOS episodes that I think are great, though the 70s hokey is a little hard to get past at times.
I'm even willing to give them some of a break for turning utopia into dystopia, because despite the fact that the entire point of Star Trek is to portray a utopian future, I know that darkness, dystopia and apocalypse are the current "in" thing, and that if done correctly, can make for a really good story. But I'm also a little over it. It's supersaturated. Everything is dark. I'm waiting for a version of Mickey Mouse to come out where Minnie ran away with Donald, Pluto got hit by a car, and Mickey spends his days drinking and singing country songs.
Oh well, you'll be hearing from me again when the disastrous movie version of World War Z comes out. Because it's the same formula. Take some great source material, buy the naming rights, then change every thing about it to turn it into a generic action movie.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with a lot of what you are saying, Lyrhawn, yet I loved the movie. The loss of the important ideas is apparent in the new ones, yet I find myself experiencing the same wonder I always have with Star Trek, except stronger in some ways. The end of the first movie left me excited for their next adventure. I felt that feeling even stronger at the end of this one.
I do wish their was more of the Star Trek ideas in this, but I also think back to Star Trek of past years, and there was a lot about it that just wasn't that great. There are things about the new movies that are done better, and things that we have lost.
I must admit, I have some concerns that the ongoing films will become more action movies than they already are, and lose more heart. But the optimist in me believes that the hook needed to be set to make Star Trek a viable franchise for mainstream people, and that hook has been set. I feel very optimistic about where the franchise may head from here.
And as far as the plot and science not making sense, that fits right in with Trek lore. There are so many ridiculous scenarios in the Trek universe that it is, well, ridiculous. I can overlook that part.
Overall, this reviewer captures a lot of how I feel:
quote:You would have to comb through "Into Darkness" to find the philosophical lesson. Maybe there's a statement about the dangers of genetic engineering. Maybe there's something about how it's always a good idea to keep a dead tribble around, just in case.
I believe the original series helped to set my own moral compass as a child. All that talk and action about the good of the many, doing the right thing, loyalty, and accepting different cultures really made an impact on me. I don't think kids seeing "Into Darkness" are going to get the same sort of feelings I did as a 10-year-old sitting in front of the tube TV after school, hanging on every line of dialogue.
Still, I can't help but believe there must be a way to balance the action and the philosophy. "Wrath of Khan" did it. These new movies can still aspire to reach that level. That's why I'm so looking forward to the next one. After all, another lesson "Star Trek" taught me is optimism. I have a lot of hope for the future of the franchise.
posted
I'm not sure I agree about the hook. The idea seems to be that this is what's necessary to bring in a new generation of fans, but I see three problems with that:
1. You can read any number of articles that say Star Trek has always had a ceiling, and all these movies have done is lower it a little bit. It's starting to look like Into Darkness sales aren't going to beat Star Trek, because people say the first one and a lot of them didn't come back for the second, which means it's still being driven in large part by longtime fans, a fact also supported by the lack of support from moviegoers under 25 who aren't familiar with/didn't grow up on Star Trek. Many also suspect that, now that Star Trek is a generic shoot-em up largely based on Earth, it has to compete with a host of other generic movies based around the same ideals. Given that circumstance, are people going to go see Star Trek over Iron Man? The data seems to suggest they'll pick Iron Man. So I'm not convinced this has really opened up the series to a huge group of new fans that would watch a TV series (which is where Star Trek really belongs).
2. Ratings wise, Star Trek would be just fine judging from today's standards. Ratings for Star Trek Voyager, not exactly a fan favorite, crush every episode of a show like Mad Men (actually, they specifically crush Mad Men). Almost everyone has cable, so it's not an access issue, and an episode of Star Trek is cheap compared to what some shows cost today. Trekkies alone could sustain a series if it needed to make ratings like what AMC shows have, and they're some of the highest rated shows on television.
3. If this is the hook necessary to get people back on board, then you can't change it later and expect to keep them, which means this is the Star Trek we get from here on out. People keep telling me "but this is what we have to suffer through now so we can get Trek back on TV," but that doesn't make me feel any better unless this is a temporary suffering, or even if it wasn't, that NEW people who are going out to see the movies are also going to watch the show, which I don't think is at all guaranteed based on what I've see from moviegoers.
I'm not sure how much hope I have from the next one because reading interviews with Abrams and Lindeloff, I'm convinced they have no idea what they're doing with Star Trek other than to make it into a cookie cutter action flick. And that works for a lot of people. I think it works great on that score. But they don't know how to get it up to Wrath of Khan status without actually specifically stealing from Wrath of Khan! And that doesn't work. If they can make a new WoK without simply stealing what they can't come up with themselves, then awesome, sweet, I'll be there at the midnight movie. I'm not saying Star Trek needs to be boring by any means. My criticism isn't that there's necessarily too much action (although, there is), but yeah, there's no balance.
quote:And as far as the plot and science not making sense, that fits right in with Trek lore. There are so many ridiculous scenarios in the Trek universe that it is, well, ridiculous. I can overlook that part.
I agree and disagree. You don't have to dig to find ridiculous episodes of Star Trek, but I think it's unfair to simply point to any show's worst outings to justify something else that sucks. But the thing about Star Trek is that, usually, it has INTERNAL consistency. That is to say, it makes sense within its own universe. Now, they broke a lot of their own rules too, and we usually wag our fingers at them when they do, but there's a difference between looking at ST and saying "hey, warp speed is ridiculous, that doesn't make sense!" and "wait a minute, why don't they just beam the ridiculous 'cold fusion' device into the volcano?"
Star Trek was always the show that at least tried to get science right. It was science-fiction, not science-fantasy. It was one of the biggest genre differences between Star Trek and Star Wars. Most of the time it wasn't internally ridiculous, even if you thought the concept of a phaser or transporter was ridiculous, it often made sense within its own world. But Into Darkness fails the test at a human level because almost everything that happens is just stupid, random, non-sensical, and poor writing, which most reviewers admit is the case even while praising the shiny explosions.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many of the arguments (especially Lyrhawn's) against the new movie are that it succeeds as a (dumb) action movie and that it fails as Star Trek.
I'd disagree.
I'll give it an A- as a dumb action flick and a C- as a Star Trek film. But contextualized as a "Star Trek tribute" for mainstream audiences, I'd probably give it an A.
Honestly, most of the Star Trek movies were relatively bad movies whose only redeeming factor was that they were Star Trek. This one is a relatively good movie who's only drawback is that it is pretty weak as a "serious" Star Trek film.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder when they are going to get around to resorting to time travel so they can save Vulcan. I was disappointed that this was completely ignored in this movie. If they can attain time travel with a stupid Klingon destroyer (whatever they called the smaller ships/boats) surely they can do it with the Enterprise, and the original elderly Mr. Spock available to guide them. They could even save the Romulan home world. Just deliver the "red matter" a little earlier, in time to gobble up the star before it goes supernova. But no, they decide to have everyone resigned to their fate.
Incidentally, just how far from the Romulan home world was the star that went supernova? If the Romulan homeworld was destroyed in a matter of minutes or even a few days, then it must have been very close to the Romulan home world--maybe even the star that was its sun. If that was the case, then annihilating the star would leave Romulus without a sun. That would have destroyed the Romulan home world, too.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I might agree with that C- for a Star Trek film...but I'm not sure how this helps your case at all.
I'm not sure what your third grade even means. Galaxy Quest was a Star Trek tribute that gets an A. Into Darkness isn't a tribute.
quote:Honestly, most of the Star Trek movies were relatively bad movies whose only redeeming factor was that they were Star Trek. This one is a relatively good movie who's only drawback is that it is pretty weak as a "serious" Star Trek film.
I would rank these past two Star Treks probably right in the middle of all Star Trek movies. II, IV, VI, VIII and First Contact all come out ahead. I give it the edge over everything else because those movies were both bad AND visually unappealing. At least Into Darkness is pretty. So it ranks about a par. Not bad, not great. And your last point is the point I've been making all along. This is a perfectly fine dumb summer shoot-em up. It's just a terrible Star Trek movie. Glad we finally agree!
ETA: I'm on the fence about Star Trek: Generations. I have a lot of childhood nostalgia for it, but I think it still holds up okay. The idea of the Nexus is classic science fiction in all its glory while also tackling some really interesting character development with Picard, which is where I think it shines. Bringing back Kirk might be where it fails.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I wonder when they are going to get around to resorting to time travel so they can save Vulcan. I was disappointed that this was completely ignored in this movie. If they can attain time travel with a stupid Klingon destroyer (whatever they called the smaller ships/boats) surely they can do it with the Enterprise, and the original elderly Mr. Spock available to guide them. They could even save the Romulan home world. Just deliver the "red matter" a little earlier, in time to gobble up the star before it goes supernova. But no, they decide to have everyone resigned to their fate.
Incidentally, just how far from the Romulan home world was the star that went supernova? If the Romulan homeworld was destroyed in a matter of minutes or even a few days, then it must have been very close to the Romulan home world--maybe even the star that was its sun. If that was the case, then annihilating the star would leave Romulus without a sun. That would have destroyed the Romulan home world, too.
I got over Vulcan. It's never coming back, and it CAN'T come back. If Vulcan comes back, you ruin the alternate timeline thing. Into Darkness cannot happen unless Vulcan stays destroyed, for a lot of reasons.
The time travel aspect of the Romulan star supernova and red matter makes least sense of all. All Nero needed to do to save his wife was wait for the star to go Supernova and deliver the red matter himself. Or, simply give it to the Romulan government and tell them what was coming down the road. And hey, instead of getting revenge for your wife, you actually SAVE your wife! Done and done.
There's a companion comic book set that explains the whole supernova thing. It was in the Hobus System, which is an adjacent system. And no, the science doesn't make any sense there either. They create a weird supernova that someone turns matter into energy, which makes no sense at all, and apparently they also have it travel faster than the speed of light, which is also impossible. In reality, it would probably have taken months for the blast wave to arrive.
Personally I like the explanation that they knew it was coming, but the Senate played politics and games with each other so that regular Romulans were caught off guard when the blast wave actually arrived. It makes for a more compelling story than what they came up with.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its explained more in Star Trek Online, the blast could travel through subspace, and it was the work of some mysterious aliens.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It makes "sense" within the internal consistency of Trek though.
I liked this interpretation of how making Khan white might've been pretty clever.
quote: That being said, I think Cumberbatch was brilliant as Khan, and that the invisible whiteness of Khan was brilliantly written. If there was ever a people who considered themselves automatically and without any further comment racially superior and entitled to genocide, it's the English, and they've always accomplished it unacknowledged and with invisibility. STID's Khan was to my mind perfect in how his villainnous-ness was always implicit and normalised: there wasn't really any formal exposition scene detailing his criminality, for example and his interaction with Kirk is at times no more antagonistic than bickering bromance (the scene where they wait in the airlock). He even kills Kirk completely indirectly, unknowingly and with virtually no individual malice. Many people of colour can certainly attest to being familiar with that in their encounter with the English and their settler descendants. He's one of the best white villains I've ever seen. I even like the way he sees himself as the victim, which is certainly how white supremacy is working in the anglophone world right now.
posted
Cumberbatch was interesting as John Harrison, and pretty lame as Khan. I guarantee that absolutely NONE of that was going through their mind when they were casting Cumberbatch. I also don't think it works because whites and the English aren't typically seen as evil to people who are white, or English, which is great, perhaps, for Chinese viewers, and America's minorities, but the vast majority of people who'd view the English as the enemy won't make that connection. Especially for a show that's already called "too cerebral" by many, I think that's a leap.
See, the great thing about Ricardo Montalbahn's Khan was that he actually WAS the victim in a sense. Yes, he was the dictator of an Asian nation, he was also marooned on a planet where his wife died, at the hands of Kirk, which made his vendetta personal, and in the eyes of many, justified. That's much better and more interesting than a psychopath who thinks he's the good guy, because how many bad guys actually SEE themselves as the bad guy outside of a Batman cartoon? (Speaking of Batman cartoons, Mr. Freeze is the best white villain ever).
Especially after seeing Cumberbatch in Sherlock, Khan is a let down for 2 main reasons:
1. Cumberbatch has so much more range! He could have played an infinitely more interesting, deep villain that one whose performance depends 90% on glowering and a really deep voice. The cut scene where he's taking a shower looks like someone tried to give a cat a bath. Lame! If you cut scenes together with Star Wars to make him a Sith, it would have fit much better, because he had all the emotional range of a Lucas-villain from the prequels.
2. As that quote notes, Khan's backstory isn't explained AT ALL. Zero. Not a bit. Which means all the resonance of Khan as Khan comes from your familiarity with him from WoK and Space Seed. In other words, there was no point in making him Khan, especially for new audiences, to whom the reveal had zero effect. And that's not an homage or a tribute, it's really lazy storytelling based on a gimmick.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I apologize. I thought it was gentle jibing, all in good fun. Lyrhawn has pretty liberally turned on the spoiler faucet without marking them. So I was just letting people know to avoid the spoilers -- especially Lyrhawn's posts.
posted
You know, I don't think that "Benedict Cumberbatch is actually Khan" is a spoiler. Because when you think about it, it means nothing to the movie. He doesn't act like the Khan you know; he doesn't share the motives of the Khan you know. And the Khan of this movie gets no backstory or description, so it's completely irrelevant. We know from his introduction as Harrison that he's a sneaky guy with an ulterior motive and some plans -- and that's how he ends the movie, just under a different name that may resonate with some people who remember another film. They may as well have named him Kal-El -- and when people said "Oh, by the way, Cumberbatch is playing Kal-El," that wouldn't have been a spoiler, either.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frankly I don't think it's that big a deal either.
Abrams and the other people in the movie swore up and down for YEARS that he wasn't Khan for the subsection of movie goers who had any idea who Khan was, and then he's Khan! Except he's not Khan, because he's just a name, not a character.
But if you don't know who Khan is, then it means nothing. It's not like the Darth Vader reveal where you were invested in the people and it meant something. Khan means nothing. His backstory is never explained. His significance as a character is never explained. He has no connection to Kirk, and you only know he's dangerous because a couple other people tell you he is, but no one tells you why other than his demonstrated abilities as a Sith ninja.
He only has cache if you're familiar with him from WoK, which is lame for someone trying to reboot a series. If the reboot can't stand on its own, then it wasn't very well done. Khan is irrelevant without prior knowledge and familiarity.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
S******t (as Plinkett would say), if you wanted to remake Wrath of Khan, why not just remake Wrath of Khan?. No real harm in doing that. You get Havier Bardem to play Khan, and you do the exact same story from Space Seed / Wrath of Khan, with some minor changes. Done and Done.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think just about everyone involved would have been happier if he'd remained John Harrison and gotten his own storyline.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still like Super 8. I only saw it the once, but it managed to cement itself in the my movie happy place.
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: The longer I think about it, the less I like the movie. That's sad.
The entire point of a mindless summer action movie is that you DON'T think about it. Stop trying, and it won't get any worse. You go see them, you enjoy them, then you forget about them until the inevitable sequel.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I still like Super 8. I only saw it the once, but it managed to cement itself in the my movie happy place.
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: The longer I think about it, the less I like the movie. That's sad.
The entire point of a mindless summer action movie is that you DON'T think about it. Stop trying, and it won't get any worse. You go see them, you enjoy them, then you forget about them until the inevitable sequel.
I still love Super 8 as well, but I think that may have something to do with Spielberg's involvement. Super 8 gave me the same feeling I get whenever I watch Goonies.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, because movies can be terrible for reasons independent of being stupid.
Mission Impossible 3 is better than 4. They're both equally as dumb. But midway through 4, there's a part that undermines the villain's credibility as a threat, and the movie loses some of its stakes.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I still like Super 8. I only saw it the once, but it managed to cement itself in the my movie happy place.
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: The longer I think about it, the less I like the movie. That's sad.
The entire point of a mindless summer action movie is that you DON'T think about it. Stop trying, and it won't get any worse. You go see them, you enjoy them, then you forget about them until the inevitable sequel.
I still love Super 8 as well, but I think that may have something to do with Spielberg's involvement. Super 8 gave me the same feeling I get whenever I watch Goonies.
That's a lot of why I love it too. I'm not even sure how much of that was Spielberg so much as the fact that Abrams LOVED those movies when he was a kid. They were a genre all their own that movies today don't really even try to capture. There's just something about the 80s, it produced a decade of movies that at once the cheesiest movies ever but a whole generation of us grew up on Goonies, Flight of the Navigator, Krull, ET and the like, and almost as soon as the 90s hit, we stopped making those. Super 8 nailed the feel but with 21st century graphics. And it nailed it because Abrams LOVED those movies. It was an admitted ode to Spielberg because he was trying to make something that matched what Spielberg (and those like him) did. Peter Jackson grew up obsessed with LOTR, and made fantastic movies based on them.
Star Trek, on the other hand, he's admitted he never liked and never understood. I think it's the same thing with the X-Men movies. Bryan Singer never liked or was familiar with X-Men, and made his own movies without any real knowledge. And they sucked. He thought it was just flying around zapping people. Same thing with Abrams, who tried to throw bones to fans by flinging reminders at us but couldn't quite seem to grasp that Star Trek isn't loved by fans because of a few cheesy one-liners.
It's why I'm actually really looking forward to Star Wars, because Abrams loves Star Wars. I think you either need to really understand your material, or you need to be a singularly superior writer and film maker (a la Whedon) to play in someone else's sand box. Otherwise, everything more or less ends up looking the same. Which is why Star Trek was fun, flashy and entirely forgettable.
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: But...but...Star Trek!
Don't worry, it's not REALLY Star Trek.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have yet to find an explanation for this, but was Kahn's blood really the only blood that could have saved Kirk?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: I have yet to find an explanation for this, but was Kahn's blood really the only blood that could have saved Kirk?
One would assume not. There's no reason to assume he's any different than any of the other Augments. But there was no way for McCoy to know that for sure without taking the time to test one, so making sure Spock didn't kill Khan would be the safest route.
Also, while I'm at it...
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: "wait a minute, why don't they just beam the ridiculous 'cold fusion' device into the volcano?"
I actually agree with a lot of what you've said in this thread, but this (if you were serious about it) is a poor example because they address it directly. They couldn't transport anything in the vicinity of the volcano without flying the Enterprise right up to it (I can't remember the specifics but I'm sure in involved some technobabble about ionic interference ), and if they'd done that the indigenous people would have seen the ship. Which they ultimately do anyway to save Spock...
Posts: 89 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged |
1. How long did it take between the Enterprise stabilizing, Spock beaming down for an incredibly overlong Star Wars style jumping between hovercars style fight with Khan etc and when Khan was actually brought back to the ship? In all that time, Bones couldn't have just popped down to the storage area, opened up the other containers and yanked some blood out? If anything, it probably would have been faster than waiting for Spock to get Khan. I don't have a problem with Bones telling Spock to capture not kill just in case (though, telling Spock of all people not to engage in vendetta killing seems a little unnecessary and shows you just how far away from Star Trek we really are), but really, he had a cargo bay full of cures.
2. Actually, what they said in the movie was that they needed a LINE OF SIGHT to beam Spock out, not proximity. You can get a line of sight just as easily from space as you can right on top of the volcano. There's silly technobabble and there's silly technobabble. This is just LAZY technobabble because it presupposes that nothing you say in the technobabble actually matters. When you're just plain making up science, as is often necessary in Star Trek, then okay, but when you're using regular concepts even I can understand, then you're just being lazy. I know the difference, as do most people, between proximity and line of sight.
They should have just stayed in space, but then we couldn't have gotten that super cool scene of the Enterprise ridiculously rising out of the water like a vengeful leviathan.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I thought it was pretty blah.
IMO this movie was just boring.
I liked AE significantly better, though that might have been because I was still disappointed by how bad Star Trek was.
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: watched the movie again sober
david lindelof should not be involved in moviemaking anymore thx
I read a rather long Vanity Fair piece about how he was brought in to save World War Z, and deduced I have no interest in seeing World War Z.
It's actually a fascinating piece that sort of underscores my problems with Star Trek. They go in at length in interviews about how they got the rights to World War Z, and proceeded to basically dump the entire plot of the book and turn it into a cookie cutter action fast-moving zombie thriller.
They didn't want the story, they just wanted the name, because World War Z is hugely popular.
If they'd used the JMS script, I'd probably go see it. Both because he's a great writer, and he actually tried to stay true to the original.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, between Lost, Prometheus, and now the Trek reboots, I'm having trouble understanding what it is people like about Lindelof. It's disappointing, because all three of those things could have been much better if there had been writers attached who gave a crap about coherent plotting. Instead, they were disappointments. (Edit: I gave up on Lost very early in season 2, but everything that percolated through to me about the series afterward confirmed my view that they really were just throwing hooks everywhere without any clue where they would eventually take it all.)
I enjoyed the Trek reboots as summer popcorn, but only that. My expectations were very low going into both, and they were exceeded in each case, but I was pretty disappointed by the plotting in both movies. I thought both of them were basically nonsensical.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Star Trek Into Darkness" works as long as you turn off your brain and enjoy the pretty lights and the cool lines. It was actually entertaining enough that I did enjoy it quite a bit, even as I realized that not a single plan of any character at any point in the movie made sense. So I liked it, and I'll probably see it again, and I don't for a second think much thought was put into making it consistent with old Trek, with itself, or with science.
(Wanna save a civilization from a volcano without getting spotted? Fire a photon torpedo into the base on the side away from where the civilization is to provide drainage. Do it a few hours before dawn, from space, and the only thing anyone sees can easily be explained as a fortuitous meteorite. Freezing the volcano just means the flow is coming to come out somewhere else, like, say, from underneath the civilization.)
Yes, any movie plot is coming to come unraveled if you pick at it. This particular movie plot has to be vigorously defended at every turn because, in so many ways, it just doesn't make sense.
Unless.
Unless you realize the true aim of the movie, which is this: Make cool scenes.
Every plot point was there to either build up to or display a cool scene. So many plot threads are inexplicable and bizarre, unless you realize they're happening not because they're moving the plot forward or building character but because the screenwriter needs this Cool Big Thing to happen a few pages later. Then they make perfect sense.
The biggest difference between Abrams and, for example, Whedon, is that Abrams creates cool scenes and then strings together enough plot to connect them. Whedon creates great character moments and then uses action scenes to connect those.
Which is fine. It made for an exciting, shiny action movie. The fact that all of the character names could have been changed and Star Trek taken off the title and it would have been just as entertaining is immaterial.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It didn't even work for me in that way Chris. It looked really pretty but nothing about the movie was exciting, throughout the movie I was searching for something to occupy my mind because the movie was so boring.
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, note I have not advised that. I said it can entertain if you do that. I'm not excusing the laziness of the writers or the lack of concern on the part of the director. I did say I enjoyed it, but only despite its many, many flaws.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by T:man: It didn't even work for me in that way Chris. It looked really pretty but nothing about the movie was exciting, throughout the movie I was searching for something to occupy my mind because the movie was so boring.
I went back and forth. Even while I was annoyed by all the crap happening, I still laughed at the funny lines and liked the pretty pictures, and the Jedi ninja scene on Qo'noS. But after that, I was a bit exhausted with it all. I kind of just wanted it to end at that point, but it kept going. I probably would have enjoyed it more if the end had been 20 minutes shorter.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Ah, note I have not advised that. I said it can entertain if you do that. I'm not excusing the laziness of the writers or the lack of concern on the part of the director. I did say I enjoyed it, but only despite its many, many flaws.
to be fair a movie is coming out in which anybody i know is under orders to turn off their brain to watch it period no questions
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
), and if they'd done that the indigenous people would have seen the ship. Which they ultimately do anyway to save Spock...
