Shaka Zulu wrote:
(and everybody else that's not a Trekfan trapped in Trekfan dogma about Gene Roddenberry's 'vision' of what Star Trek's supposed to be)
You're doing it again.
I . . . would think that it has enough merit to win awards for script, direction, cinematography, and acting as much as the supposedly original Gravity merits them.
The trouble is that it's not really just about what you think, nor about how shrill and needlessly defensive you are about what other people think. What award shows are weighing have nothing to do with how many "topicality" boxes you can tick off in STiD's script, nor with your private uni-directional feud with imaginary hordes of evil persecuting Trekfans. Their business is assessing the actual quality of the movies involved, period.
The fact of the matter is that Gravity
won almost universal critical acclaim and did better box than STiD -- and excelled most other films among its fellow nominees in these regards as well -- for very good reasons. Its odds in award shows are better for the same reasons. I for one am not saying this just to slam Abrams: if Gravity
were competing against a movie of the quality of The Wrath of Khan
I would still like its chances better. (As things are, I also like its chances better than several other films in the categories it's nominated in that I also quite like, such as Pacific Rim
and The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
.) It's just a really really good movie, it costs me nothing to recognize that.