View Single Post
Old May 15 2013, 07:49 PM   #2012
Rear Admiral
Location: In the bleachers

ConRefit79 wrote: View Post
Franklin wrote: View Post
And these are particularly important negative reviews because -- ?

There's a saying The Washington Post uses here to sell newspapers (their critic loved STID, by the way): If you don't get it, you don't get it. These reviews don't get it. STID is no different than the intelligently done but still sometimes campy TOS. The story is as deep as almost any TOS episode and prior movies. Marc Cushman is quoted as saying, "It's lost a lot of its reality." Reality? Huh? Explanation, please.

The NY Post review says that "surplus action and lack of creative commentary" is the biggest sticking point to purists. Not this purist. There are valid negative reviews out there, but any like NY Post's that hold Abrams's movies to a standard that is mythical to being with, well they just don't get it. Besides, who the hell walks out of a summer movie saying, "I wish there would've been less action and more sitting around conference tables discussing issues"?
Someone referenced some reviews but did not include links. I searched for the reviews and posted some links.
Understood. But I thought it was best to quote you with your links since they should've been in the original post. I'm not attacking either messenger, either. There are valid criticisms of this movie. I just don't think comparing Abrams's take on Trek to a version looked at through rose-colored glasses is a valid way to criticize it.
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote