View Single Post
Old September 23 2013, 05:20 PM   #24
WhateverMan
Ensign
 
Re: The 90's Golden Age.

BillJ wrote: View Post
WhateverMan wrote: View Post
The characters are all hyper charged for the sake of stereotyping.
They're simply younger versions of the characters we saw in TOS. How dare they actually show people who will grow and change. I know I'm the same exact person I was ten years ago. How about you?

Uhura is promoted to the third main character, a change I will never forgive.
How dare they upgrade her from "Hailing frequencies open" and "Captain, I'm scared".



Go watch early TOS and you'll see exactly where the idea comes from.

Poor Bones has been demoted to nothing.
I'm not for shoe-horning characters into the spotlight just because I like the character. The last two movies haven't needed McCoy to be front and center so he hasn't been.

All this aside, Into Darkness was a new level of awful. All it did was rip off from all other Star Trek films into a convoluted stupid mess. The laziness of the writing, the stupidity of the story (super blood that brings people back from the dead??????????) and the endless references (rip offs) were just cheap and unnecessary. Why not make a very good original story with interesting developments which makes the audience think? The reason is obvious, because these films are made to only make money. There is no real interest in making a good movie with an interesting story, just something safe that will make money. Which is why they used all the cheapest tricks to draw in all the Star Trek nerds to see it. I was one of them.
You do know that both TOS and TNG had episodes that brought folks back from the dead? TNG has an episode where Crusher brought three people back who had been dead for three-hundred years.

I'm sure you believe that Roddenberry and Berman were making Trek for free from the goodness of their hearts and that Paramount gave all profits to the Little Sisters of the Poor?

What non-sense. Star Trek has always had money as its driving purpose. Studios don't invest tens to hundreds of millions of dollars into a product just for the hell of it.

With The Butler, Into Darkness is the worst film I've seen in theater this year.
[/QUOTE]


Watch out, you're almost putting words in my mouth. I have no illusions about the profitability of Star Trek, but there exist ways to be true to the source and make money. Something which I don't feel Abrams has done. It's completely fine to like these films, but they should called what they are. I sort of liked the 2009 movie, but it still isn't a great movie and certainly not a good Star Trek movie.

I can't see how Into Darkness can be considered a good movie. It's awful Star Trek and it's awful as a plain movie. And yes there have been some revivals in Star Trek, but never done as stupid as Into Darkness. They use the genetically engineered blood as a magic serum to cure death. Now they can literally cure almost everything at all times. To quote a greater critic than myself: "Plot convenience equals Movie suck." Most movies use this to some degree, but Into Darkness was nothing but this.

I'm familiar with the Spock/Uhura thing from TOS, but it doesn't change the fact how chemistry free and boring they were in the film. I'm also familiar with character arcs, but having characters with no nuances and subtleties is childish. I'll agree that Spock was by far the most wholesome character in the new films and has more complexity than anyone else. But he still pales to the original Spock.

I think you enjoy Into Darkness for all the same reasons I hate it. But let's not kid ourselves, I enjoy a lot of crappy movies, but I never forget they suck. I guess time will tell how Into Darkness will be regarded in the future by fans and non fans alike. So I'm not saying my opinion is holy and written in stone for all eternity.
WhateverMan is offline   Reply With Quote