View Single Post
Old May 27 2013, 07:40 AM   #59
Tom Servo
Tom Servo's Avatar
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Why did they bother...

trevanian wrote: View Post
YARN wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
Star Trek Into Darkness had the balls to take unpopular positions on U.S. actions and all people can do is scream it isn't enough.
Unpopular position?

Everyone supports the troops; fewer and fewer people support the wars. Now that the U.S. has been at war for 12 years and we know that there were no WMDs, it's pretty easy to look back with hindsight and say that preemptive war is not such a good idea. The message would have been courageous in 2002 when everyone in America was spoiling for the fight, not in 2013 when we've already had a belly full.

It doesn't take "balls" to take the stand eleven years too late.

The position taken on U.S. foreign policy in the film is muddled. Admiral Marcus is a renegade military man, so this does not really criticize legitimate foreign policy of the United States. That admirals should not take it upon themselves to start their own wars is a no-brainer even in a post 9-11 world. John Harrison is a terrorist which only plays into the "War on Terror" angle.

Plenty of other films have cashed in on 9-11 iconography (e.g., Cloverfield, War of the Worlds), so this isn't new ground either.

BillJ wrote: View Post
I'm fairly convinced at this point that to a certain group of fans there is simply nothing Abrams can do right, short of leaving the franchise.
And I am fairly convinced that to a certain group there is no criticism of the new films, no matter how patiently reasoned it may be, which will be tolerated.
Yeah, and at least some of that group was also in the 'ENTERPRISE can do no wrong' category over a decade back. Does that indicate a certain level of taste carries over between these two disparate (and to me, inferior) versions of TREK? Or is it they are all either fawning sycophants or paid to gush?

I think at this point I've exhausted my interest in trying to find answers on that topic. I just hope that the next iteration of TREK winds up being a smarter version with respect to this one, akin to the Nolan Batfilms, which will place the Abrams era as Trek's answer to Joel Schumacher's Batman.
That's never going to happen. The Schumacher Batmans we're lambasted as horrible even they were made. Quite the opposite has happened with Abrams Trek.

I have noticed that you do seem to hold Nolan in high esteem, which I agree with, he is a talented filmmaker. But saying that his Batman films are the intelligent ones and saying that Abrams films are more akin to Schumacher is laughable. Nolan's Batmans, while well made and executed, have just the same sort of intelligence problems and plot holes that you seems to bash Abrams for. That's not to say that it bothers me, but I cannot figure out how one can sit there and criticize one and praise the other. Nor can I see how you could watch any of the Schumacher Batmans and think that he could compare the the look of style of the Abrams shows. IMHO Abrams is the much more talented filmmaker, and it shows.
"I like this ship! It's exciting!"-Scotty "Star Trek"

Member of Red Sox Nation
Tom Servo is offline   Reply With Quote