King Daniel Into Darkness wrote:
But as Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy shows, that in no way means you have to throw away quality of storytelling.
I would argue there is none to be found in the Dark Knight trilogy. Films 2 and 3 were so full of holes they make the things Trek fans complain about in XI+ seem like nothing at all.
Are you sure it's not simply the more serious tone of those movies you like, instead of the banter and humour of '09 and ID? Isn't that what we had in Nemesis?
Actually, what I esteem about the Dark Knight trilogy is the power of the story and how it tells an arc of the various characters. It took the ideas involved seriously. Plus I found myself genuinely wrapped up in what happened.
I believe "tone" should match the material. For example people complain about BSG's dark, angst-laden tone--as if that were somehow inappropriate with a story centered around an act of genocide that makes the Holocaust look like a fender bender. Rather, I think the original version's tone in no way matched the story. I had a similar problem with Kindred: The Embraced
However, humor need not mean empty-headed or silly or shallow. Firefly
is a fine example of a series that ran the emotional gamut (pretty much true of all Joss Whedon's work), not least because very few laughs ended up cheap. Ditto The West Wing
For the record I loved the Tim Burton Batman films as well.
I quite liked Abrams' first ST, but hoped the second would be a little less of a roller coaster ride. As I've said to some friends who loved both "They were a lot of fun--but Star Trek
has always been more, and I wish these had been." I never minded the laughs. I minded the never-catch-your-breath style that didn't allow for much beyond that roller coaster ride. Snippets of story surrounding explosions, fights and chase scenes. That is, imho, the wrong way round.