View Single Post
Old August 28 2013, 05:26 AM   #10
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Defending J.J. Abrams (rant) (Spoilers)

No, lens flares have been pretty much destroyed as an artistic tool. It is like somebody saw the opening credits of the old HAWAII 5-0 and shot a whole movie filled with zoom lens shots. There's no artistry, just artifice, and besides that, hard on the eyes.

But I was responding here to your original post and the aspect dealing with violence. I don't think levels of violence or styles of portraying violence are anywhere near the heart of most complaining about the Abramsmovies ... that isn't the case for me, anyway, and I sure as shit despise nearly every minute of both of them (saw the first one on DVD and had to fast forward a couple times, then three years later managed to get through the whole thing streaming, broken into two viewings ... my wife is a huge Cumberbatch fan so I took her to see ID in the theater, and I think she may have been more appalled by it than I was.)

I think there is more real violence in TOS than in any of the movies. PLATO'S STEPCHILDREN is one of the hardest things in all of TREK for me to watch (well, we're not going to talk about VOYAGER or LITTLE ENTERPRISE, they're hard to watch for the usual 'geezus this is shit!' reasons.) The stuff with Spock doing the tap step around Kirk's head carries huge potential for destruction, and engages emotionally in a 'let me out of here' way.

None of the trek films, or even the Abrams films, have depicted anything terribly gruesome in a seriously off-putting way (Dougherty's death in INS really SHOULD have been, and the same can be said for the transporter accident in TMP), but if you want an example where the violence went too far for some in a franchise, you can look at LICENCE TO KILL, which turned a lot of people off by being honest and portraying Bond's universe as one that was in keeping with a lot of Fleming's writing. Even the ball-whacking in CASINO didn't seem to upset like LTK did.

On a side note, the idea you mention that FC is action-packed is something I've heard over and over again, but really, it is anything but. It trades much more in suspense than action, and when it does engage in action, it doesn't do it very well (Jean-Luc Peter Pan's arcing flight over the deflector dish, anyone?) It took me over a decade to get over my huge problems with FC, ranging from how they utterly blew their chance to show some REAL ashes that the Phoenix rises out of, to the FORBIDDEN PLANET level of moronic comic relief (something that recurs in all the TNG features.)

As for character development on ID, I just saw it as bad to start with (the whole Prime Directive opening offended me massively), so whatever happened later didn't make up for the early mess (can also apply this statement to the 09 as a whole, because I didn't buy a single thing in that movie ... it may as well have been ATTACK OF THE CLONES (or THE GREEN SLIME, MESSAGE FROM SPACE, insert whatever title works best for you as film-that-is-total-suckfest, but keep in mind Luciana Paluzzi is in GREEN SLIME so it CAN'T be all bad), it had that little connection or resonance with me (except in the 'geez they sure fucked THAT up, didn't they?' ways.)
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote