Star Trek Into The Darkness

cnh

Personally, I'm not sure "anyone" can save the Star Wars franchise--because it gave up its ghost quite some time ago. lol

As far as the recent Trek film. My post was also cut. No biggie.

I was pleasantly surprised. To say that things are not developed but that the film is "predictable" seems to be a contradiction at best. The fact that NOT everything was fully fleshed out is not really an issue here because there is enough given in the film to make sense of it--and, in the end, that's all that is really necessary. Some of the greatest novels ever written DON'T work everything out but leave that to the reader, you. Not that this is a great film, it is not. But "good", yes!

Just the right balance between "old" and "new". Just the right number of "twists" for a reboot.

And as far as the director? He's competent but no Kurosawa or Bergman or Tarkovsky. He's a second tier technician, some talent, not a lot, and some sensibility for what looks "good" and what "sells". He will not be remembered as one of the greats! But a good Hollywood Hack! And isn't that "really" all a good Star Trek film needs?

cnh

westmassguy

I'm not a hardcore Trekkie or Trekker, but did watch the original series and all its siblings. I think Abrams did a great job with casting, and basic story telling. Yes there were plot holes, and certain things weren't fleshed out enough, but if your a fan of the original series, there are many references to some of the original shows, and overall, laid the groundwork for quite a few more sequels. I enjoyed both movies immensely, and look forward to a few more. As far as action, that's why I enjoy space based SciFi. I want things blowing up. If I want cerebral, I'll read a book. Just my opinion.
I do agree that Star Wars needs more than a reboot, more like a barbed wire ****. George was/is a great story teller, but please, let someone else write the dialog. Episodes II & III were painful to listen to.

billbillw

cnh wrote: »

Personally, I'm not sure "anyone" can save the Star Wars franchise--because it gave up its ghost quite some time ago. lol

As far as the recent Trek film. My post was also cut. No biggie.

I was pleasantly surprised. To say that things are not developed but that the film is "predictable" seems to be a contradiction at best. The fact that NOT everything was fully fleshed out is not really an issue here because there is enough given in the film to make sense of it--and, in the end, that's all that is really necessary. Some of the greatest novels ever written DON'T work everything out but leave that to the reader, you. Not that this is a great film, it is not. But "good", yes!

Just the right balance between "old" and "new". Just the right number of "twists" for a reboot.

And as far as the director? He's competent but no Kurosawa or Bergman or Tarkovsky. He's a second tier technician, some talent, not a lot, and some sensibility for what looks "good" and what "sells". He will not be remembered as one of the greats! But a good Hollywood Hack! And isn't that "really" all a good Star Trek film needs?

cnh

I guess we disagree then. I felt there was too much emphasis on the overly extended action scenes. As far as predictable, I saw where most of the 2nd half of the movie was going, once the let the K secret out of the bag.

maximillian

Will hopefully watch it this weekend, and hopefully with an open mind.

The Star Trek universe is huge - quite literally. They can do anything they want. You can create any villain, and pretty much any story. There is just so much possibility if the writer's simply had an open mind, and developed a good story. It's not easy, but to say that there is no more material to hash out is just being short cited.

The producers need to stop using plot material from the other movies then making a complete wreck of it. Here's what I mean, ST 2009 - kobayashi maru scene. We didn't get to see the details in ST-2 WOK, so it's fine to see what Kirk did to ultimately win him the commendation. Watching the scene you get the feeling that it is pointless. Kirk's changes are not subtle and is obvious cheating. In the end he's called out for it. It makes him look like a simple lazy cadet, instead of having "original thinking". The the explanation that Spock gives for the purpose of the test, "to experience fear" is a joke. It's a known simulation; how would anyone experience fear? There was a TNG episode where Wesley Crusher was put to a test but he didn't know it. In this scene it was obvious.

The only purpose of this scene is to introduce Kirk to Spock and to get them annoyed at each other. That could have been done many other ways than grabbing material from another movie, which used the scene as a metaphor for the entire movie, and then totally making it insignificant. Maybe I am nit-picking, but it just seems like sloppy writing, and it's not the only problem.

Sorry for being negative, again I want to like the new movie. I watched a rebuttal to RedletterMedia's review and they explained some of the subtle points of the plot. Perhaps knowing a little of what they tried to do may help enjoy it.