View Single Post
Old August 28 2013, 04:20 PM   #11
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Re: Defending J.J. Abrams (rant) (Spoilers)

xconstaud wrote: View Post
Star Trek First Contact and every movie in existence is limited to production style and consumer tastes. The consumer taste of that time were not all to different from what they are today, but the production style was behind that of what the consumer truly wanted. But yet, consumers were happy with what was being produced and learned to deal with it because the industry was maxed out at what it could displayed in these two movies.. they were top of the line for 96'. Both budgets were under $100 million as well.
How do you know that consumers, let alone uniformly, had similar tastes and only reluctantly accepted the style of FC? I believe Bad Boys, for a smaller budget, was significantly more violent and was also successful but for different viewers and/or different reasons.

xconstaud wrote: View Post
Now dig deeper into First Contact... you have the Borg wiping out the entire ship, firing weapons onto earth (killing countless people), the crew being forced to kill other now-Borg crew members, a drunk Cochrane acting a fool and being violent, the destruction of multiple vessels in the fight to destroy the Borg Cube...etc etc.
Don't remember Cochrane being violent but the film was certainly dark and even pretty violent; it generally didn't revel in it, though.

xconstaud wrote: View Post
violence has always existed in Star Trek... don't get me started on the Wraith of Khan. It's the way the violence is presented that has changed. If you ask someone who was in their teens to mid 20's when the Original motion picture came out or the original TV series, they would tell you that First Contact is much more violent then what "Star Trek" use to be. Same with those of us who grew up with Wraith of Khan or even First Contact, we will look at the reboot as violent compared to what "Star Trek" use to be. That's not the case, the ability to express violence has changed greatly within the last decade alone...expediently over the past four to five decades!
I don't have a problem with including violence but it should have some sense of gravitas (there was some but not enough in ID), shouldn't be overwhelming and the protagonists should only use the minimal amount.

xconstaud wrote: View Post
Their development only continued in Into Darkness. We came to found out that Kirk, though a rebel, was willing to sacrifice his life for his crew. Spock does have a human side and he is a bit of a rebel as well. Uhura shows her lack of fear and her emotion for Spock. Scotty clearly shows that he sticks by his values...even after kicking kicked off of the Enterprise. McCoy stepped up for Kirk as a support.
I mostly liked Spock in 09 and was disappointed in his portrayal here. The portrayal of Scotty was pretty good but the moments with McCoy seemed overly brief and those with Uhura and Kirk's sacrifice (and earlier decision to use Khan) both seemed overly forced, as did Marcus's actions.

xconstaud wrote: View Post
Last, the intellect of the Trek universe..they don't seem too smart in the latest movies do they? I'd have to agree and will not defend it per say. But I will add that it is the right move. They slowly took away this intellect factor in the films as time passed. Because it was corny and honestly just does not fit in a two hour movie.
You don't have to have an entirely cerebral crew but if the depiction of the future is supposed to be at least somewhat positive they shouldn't act as non-professional as Kirk and Uhura do.

xconstaud wrote: View Post
This post is directed at the side of the community that has a strong hatred for J.J. Abram's work.
I was disappointed in both films (primarily for the characterizations and plots) but only really dislike the second (because I felt the action and plotting were really bad).
"[W]here free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost."-Ronald Reagan
suarezguy is offline   Reply With Quote