 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
May 21, 2013 - 10:09 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
Did it 'have to be' made with a younger cast? Yes.
Did it have to be made Abrams way? No.
What is Abrams way that is not "Star Trek" like enough?
Chiefly these are action pictures, and they were not really action pictures before. So the markers of these actions pictures are;
The speed of the cuts and scenes.
Lens Flare
Bombast
Predominance of action set pieces and violence
Lack of cosmic themes
Each of the above things is fine in themselves, I do not mind the lens flare and some of these elements, but maybe it runs too much against the Star Trek aesthetic. If you put them all in one film I think it does run against what is "Star Trek". We could have Ridley Scott or Christopher Nolan do a Star Trek, as a film they would be surely well crafted, but NOT "Star Trek".
The story of ID is both big and small since it really all comes back to earth, and even smaller, to San Francisco and the Enterprise crew. There is a lack of mystery too, even though the scope of the action is large and impressive, the scope of the threat/problem/question is not. It is one bad guy, and another badder guy. What is the motivation of John Harrison? The real root of revenge is not that clear, similar to what drove Nero in the first one. The fine details, or the depth of what drives them is pretty sketchy but filled in with violent actions instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It IS "Star Trek". Reimagined/reinvented/reinvigorated.
The "Star Trek" we all grew up with has grown stale, predictable and, frankly, the actors most closely associated with the series are all too old to continue in those roles.
What to do? What to do?
Allow the series to die. Or reinvent it.
If you are looking for the warm fuzzies you got with the old James Kirk or Jean-Luc Picard, then forget about it.
We now have a Kirk, Spock, Bones, Uhura, Chekov and Sulu for a new generation and a reborn "Star Trek"-verse.
It is the "now". And it's finally in the hands of a director who knows how to reinvent it and make it shine.
Did we actually see the same movie? The story, once iconic and in no way stale--in fact remains fresh to this day--Abrams chose to retread did not shine, was very stale and very predictable. Had he chosen to actually make a new story in that universe I would have agreed with you. The characters themselves are fresh, the story in this film was not. And I don't mean simply by virtue of re-telling an already known story. He didn't even choose to give it different depth or meaning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For one thing the bad guy is terribly predictable and miscast and is suppose to harken back to Kahn with the personal connection and all, like most of the movie is to TWOK.
There is too much focus on action and almost none on story and even backstory.
What little is added of storyline is rehash from earlier Trek episodes/movies.
It has the characters we know and love and yet it barely scratches the surface of Trek.
It's overlit in a majority of scenes and lacks any vision.
Oh, and the director didn't even know Levar Burton's character was called Geordi Laforge.
It has a scene where Worf is drunk and Data is singing.
Ron Perlman was completely waisted as a secondary better villain and gets bitch slapped by Riker.
Need I go on?
Francis, you may not be talking about the same movie we're all talking about. Care to clarify?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For me, it's all that lens flare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, no you di'n't!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
