Noname Given wrote:
I give it a D-. I thought visually it was nice. The story was unoriginal. There were so many plot holes I don't know where to begin. It was a good action sci fi film but it wasn't Star Trek even with its little homages to prime universe Trek. I just think JJ Abrams is more suited for Star Wars type films. I cannot get used to that beer factory engine room or the bridge with a window/view screen with light glares bouncing off it. Sorry, as much as I love Trek I cannot get into this version.
So, I suppose ST:TMP (being unoriginal as it was a remake of the perevious episode "The Changeling"; as well as being full of p[lot holes
) "wasn't Star Trek" either?
Well, if you peeled the bad art direction & moronic splitfocus diopters
off TMP it was still something resembling TREK underneath, just that the characters were in a different place in their lives.
But if you stopped aiming every light at the camera
in the Abrams, and also discarded the ludicrous brewery
and the rest of the contemporary welds, you'd STILL have something that didn't resemble trek underneath.
So I would not concur.
Is there any criticism that isn't just pure nitpicking?
Abramstrek isn't like the old Star Trek because Spock is behaving like a psychopath, Kirk is a playboy hot shot who likes to execute bad guys and makes really stupid decisions, they made Starfleet a lot more militaristic, and made the 23rd century way too contemporary, and went away from the idea that Trek needs to convey some sort of message in an entertaining fashion, in favor of hollow sci fi action. And a lot more points that differ.
What is it with people and their split focus diopters, plot holes, breweries or lens flares? All those nitpicks are not the reason why the new films aren't remotely close to original Star Trek.