3 Comments

  1. Ben
    Ben June 21, 2013 at 7:03 pm . Reply

    I absolutely agree on the re-treads and how hollow they are. Its not just that these moments echo the previous film, its that they do so in a way that completely forgets what made them so pivotal the first time. Kirk and Khan face off on two opposing ships just like the old days, but because their relationship lacks the impact of history and reciprocated revenge, the evocation is meaningless. This whole aspect is only saved for me by Cumberbatch’s performance, which is the highlight of the film for me. And that they missed the chance to be ballsy and actually kill Kirk, which would have made the next film instantly anticipated, was really disappointing.

    I didn’t mind the big ship that much, if only because I felt establishing the idea that the crew was completely screwed was worth the logical leap, and Peter Weller’s bad guy was fun (loved the Section 31 reference). In a Star Trek universe that has personal planet to planet transwarp beaming technology that renders all spaceship travel redundant, I think we have bigger fish to fry than that. I can’t bring myself to hold this series to the normal Star Trek standard, because it goes so far out of its way to set itself apart as its own thing, which is a mercy most reboots don’t bother with. It’s popcorn, and on that level, its perfectly fine as entertainment as far as I’m concerned.

    And no, that ship that split into three parts from Voyager was not better than anything. Nothing from Voyager was better than anything, except maybe seasons two and three of Enterprise, Insurrection, and Nemesis.

  2. Nozawa
    Nozawa December 14, 2015 at 10:41 am . Reply

    For a novice I would asvide not seeing it period, but not because it is difficult to understand but because it is a poor imitation of what a wonderful series used to be. You re much better off watching the older series first so you can establish an understanding of the general idea of Star Trek through a more advanced perspective although I doubt the movie would be too complicated for someone of your mental caliber if that s what you mean. There is very little that was once good that hollywood gets it s hands on that doesn t end up being dumbed-down to the elementary level of the younger generations brainless, uncreative thinking to appeal to an audience with a low intellect and feed the masses.The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action.Think of what Hollywood did to Battlestar Galactica. Look, I have been a casual fan of the series for 15 years, I have seen almost every episode of every series, I could go on for days, but I am making myself nauseous just thinking about how they take everything intelligent out now and reduce everything to car chases, explosions, and unsophisticated 1-dimensional humor.As for this Star Trek reboot. Well, the plot/story was stupid and pointless. The dialogue was awful, and Checkov s fake accent alone was enough to justify me getting my money back. And the villains have just gotten successively stupider since Khan. Scary tattoos? Give me a break. For anyone who hasn t had a frontal lobotomy, flashy special effects alone just don t add up to a satisfying movie experience worthy of Gene Rodenberry s beautiful and optimistic vision of what our future as a species could be.Even the attempts at humor fell flat- Is Simon Pegg s new green friend supposed to be amusing or what? Just awful. They did do a good job on the effects as that is all movie producers seem to be focused on today.This installment could have been fantastic with better writing but I had a feeling that this movie was going to replace some of the series great story telling with action. Unfortunately that is the only way producers are going to get the audiences attention somehow. Essentially it is more a reflection of the disintegration of modern society than it is of bad movie making. Was this answer helpful?

Post Comment