Roberto Orci Not Directing Trek XIII

Sounds more like Star Trek Generations than Star Trek Into Darkness.

 

+1

 

+1

ID, as much as I think there is room for improvement, there is more depth to it than it is given credit for.

 

That's fine if you feel that way, I just disagree (which makes me right, since we're on the internet ).

 

If you mean yet another Trek Admiral going rogue, then yeah, I guess so. But STID was a dark conspiracy within the Federation and not the optimistic future and Star Trek I grew up with. There was also such a conspiracy in The Undiscovered County, but that was somehow different and a much better movie.

 

The future in STID is optimistic. Look at medical technology, and the prosperity of the cities we saw; look at the species intermingling. If you grew up watching TOS, and TNG, then it is the Star Trek you grew up with. Doesn't mean you have to like it, but it doesn't change the common themes between them.

 

It might depend on the events on which each film (ID and TUC) are based upon, and how far removed the viewer is from those events. TUC is based upon events I only barely remember, and find the movie much more enjoyable as an adventure film than ID, which I react more in a political way, as well as the adventure, which I also find enjoyable.

Personally, I don't think ID strays from the optimistic vision, but rather challenges it and says, "What would happen if the optimistic Federation faced such a threat?" In reality, there would be a lot of fear and uncertainty and would take leadership, real leadership, to not kowtow to that fear. Marcus wasn't that leader, but I think the experience is shaping Kirk in to that leader.

It undoubtedly doesn't work for every viewer, but ID works for me.

 

If you like cheaply made, poorly written, derivative and superficial movies then TUC is for you.

 

I've always like movies that deal with the cold war. I've always liked Star Trek. So I tend to like TUC.

 

Me, too.

 

Clumsy mimickry of events while bringing absolutely nothing observant or inventive to the retelling isn't "dealing with" in a worthwhile sense.

 

Abrams had nothing to do with it. That's the difference.

 

I dunno, I get more out of it than I get out of Kirk running around with Paul Blart hands.

 

I didn't. At least Pine was worth watching as an actor and the bit was lighthearted. Watching Plummer do what he might have hoped would still be perceived as "slumming" through a lazy story that lacked any insight or interesting perspective on the mangled Cliff-Notes parodies of real-world events being recounted was just a bore from beginning to end.

 

I think maybe the difference was that in TUC, some in the leadership feared peaceful coexistence with the Klingons and tried to sabotage the existence of an external threat. While in STID, it was internally insidious and cancerous where the leadership itself was targeted. This begat the ironic suspicions about Orci's "truthers" that somewhat resembled the movie.

 

But both are well worth examination. Institutional abuse of power is a big thing in the U.S. right now.

 

I never minded the big hands and 'numbtounge' bit. It made me laugh... It was no more goofy than anything in several TOS movies...

 

It was fun. But we can't have that, Star Trek is serious business about the human condition.

 

Not to mention the fact that humor in Trek might attract "undesireables" to fandom.

 

The big hands gag is one of my favorite moments of nuTrek. It's the perfect blend of intellectual absurdity and classic slapstick tomfoolery.