RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,703
Posts: 5,431,657
Members: 24,833
Currently online: 416
Newest member: PlainSimplGarak


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 22 2014, 08:10 AM   #226
bagofsoup
Cadet
 
Re: Twelve Reasons I Love Star Trek Into Darkness

Pasi Nurminen wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
Pasi Nurminen wrote: View Post
I'm still dumbfounded that anyone can claim with a straight face that JJ Abrams captures the essence of TOS. TOS was never a big, loud, brainless action series revolving around explosions and flashing lights and loud noises. Saying JJ captures the essence of TOS is like saying Stephenie Meyer's Twilight captured the essence of Jane Austen's Persuasion. It's just absurd on its face.
No one forced you to come into this thread. For me, I love the films and what they bring to the table.
This is a discussion forum meant for the exchange of ideas. If you do not want an exchange of ideas, do not start threads or make posts on this forum.

Franklin wrote: View Post
Pasi Nurminen wrote: View Post
I'm still dumbfounded that anyone can claim with a straight face that JJ Abrams captures the essence of TOS. TOS was never a big, loud, brainless action series revolving around explosions and flashing lights and loud noises. Saying JJ captures the essence of TOS is like saying Stephenie Meyer's Twilight captured the essence of Jane Austen's Persuasion. It's just absurd on its face.
TOS featured all the explosions, flashing lights, and loud noises it could afford. If Roddenberry's budget had allowed it, there would've been even more.

As far as the action being brainless goes, . ST09 and STID were as deep in characterization and issues and plot as any good TOS episode was. TOS was not high drama, after all. It wasn't cerebral, either.

Capturing the essence of TOS to me means capturing the essence of the characters, whatever situations they're in. For the one thousandth time, in my opinion, I believe Abrams and his cohorts got them down perfectly.
I guess the principle problem is that TOS, for all its camp and ham, at least endeavoured to have something to say about the world, and it was as much about exploring the human condition as it was about space adventure. JJ Abrams, on the other hand, has nothing to say about the world, and restricts himself to mindless action. TOS was cerebral, at least compared to what JJ Abrams has served.
It's sad that so many people don't get the deeper meanings in J.J.'s new trek films. It always seemed clear cut to me. The first movie was all about getting the enterprise crew together, while the second movie was defining what Starfleet would be about.

The first movie came out after Trek had been legitimately dead for several years, and no one was sure if rebooting the original characters could ever work. By Nero messing up the timeline and the enterprise crew still all getting back together, it showed even in our world today that the message and power of Trek could not be stopped. As Old Spock alluded to, the Universe would eventually "right" itself to help everything come back together again (but just different enough to be fresh and unexplored). By the end of the first film, Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and crew are together again on the Enterprise and the Star Trek adventures that we all grew up to know and love were about to begin in a fresh way.

The second film was all about defining what Starfleet and Kirk's crew would be about. Because of Nero's timeline incursion (and Harrison's 9-11 style attack), Starfleet was looking to become more clandestine and militaristic, and less about peace and betterment and exploration. It's a tale of two leaders (Marcus vs. Kirk), two visions of star fleet (military conflict vs. explorative peace), and two ships (Vengeance vs. Enterprise). Khan is simply the instigator that brings this all to a head.

Admiral Marcus as Head of Starfleet secretly builds the Vengeance to start a pre-emptive war with the Klingons (and any other hostile aggressor) and has no one to be his good conscience. Kirk lost his dad because of Nero, and was "fathered" more recently by Pike. Kirk loses Pike to Khan, and seeks revenge with the help of his new mentor, Pike's former mentor, Admiral Marcus. Kirk is becoming just like Marcus, except that Kirk's crew and close friends (Spock, McCoy, Scotty) courageously step in to act as his conscience, reminding him of what Starfleet is supposed to be about. The slightly altered parallels to Space Seed and Wrath of Khan remind us that the universe is slightly different, yet still unfolding in similar ways. With Marcus and Khan, Kirk doesn't let evil get the best of him, but takes the higher road and challenges Starfleet (and our post 9-11 world) at his closing speech to do the same, to take up that sacred calling and explorative, peace-seeking mission that Starfleet was originally created for.

The movie ends with (1) Kirk and Enterprise crew in place, (2) Starfleet's mission defined, and (3) the Enterprise crew setting out on their original (yet new and fresh) five year mission. Amazing spectacle, engaging stories and powerful meanings that challenge both the Enterprise crew in the future and us in our world today. What more can Star Trek fans really ask for, and why don't (some) of the veteran fans get it? I have no idea!
bagofsoup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 22 2014, 08:52 AM   #227
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: Twelve Reasons I Love Star Trek Into Darkness

urbandefault wrote: View Post
austen_pierce wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
And he realizes that by catching a glimpse of her undressing? LOL.
Yeah, that came out wrong. Just meant that Kirk's expression could have been used for more than it was.

And to those that followed, not sure where you've read outrage into my comments.
Not you specifically, but the "vocal minority" who think that Alice Eve in underwear is sexist, demeaning, and pornographic. Yes, I've seen those exact words used to describe the 2 second shot.

In that context it's not only ridiculous and prudish, but pretty damn silly.
Bonus points if this group probably overlaps with the ones complaining that Gal Godot is too skinny to be Wonder Woman or Shailene Woodley isn't pretty enough to play Mary Jane in a Spider-Man movie, or lose their s@#t if Wonder Woman starts wearing pants.
Hartzilla2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 22 2014, 09:53 AM   #228
MrLister
Cadet
 
Re: Twelve Reasons I Love Star Trek Into Darkness

I loved abrams interpretation of star trek mainly because of one reason.

In my group of friends I was the sole trekkie up until 2009 and that summer I managed to convince my buddies to come see the new star trek movie, even one girl who was a hardcore star wars fan came along.
We emerged from the theatre that night with every single one of them saying that was awesome.

The movie managed to open them up to star trek and actually got them curious to the older stuff, which prior to the 09 movie they wouldn't have given the time of day.

For into darkness there was no hesitation in us all going to see it and thoroughly enjoying it.
MrLister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 22 2014, 10:25 AM   #229
martok2112
Commander
 
Re: Twelve Reasons I Love Star Trek Into Darkness

Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
Bonus points if this group probably overlaps with the ones complaining that Gal Godot is too skinny to be Wonder Woman or Shailene Woodley isn't pretty enough to play Mary Jane in a Spider-Man movie, or lose their s@#t if Wonder Woman starts wearing pants.
LOL....well, I don't "lose my s@#t if Wonder Woman starts wearing pants", but I don't care for it. To me, Wonder Woman is T&A with intellect and a warrior spirit. I love legs! I hate seeing them covered up. (I especially hated the ridiculous blue diving outfit Lynda Carter wore every time she took a dip in the second and third seasons of Wonder Woman...she was already wearing a bathing suit...) Now, if we talk the unaired, unsold Wonder Woman pilot that starred Adrienne Palicki in the titilating titular role....I would've followed that show. I loved that take on Wonder Woman. Yeah, she started out in pants, but in the final fight of that pilot, she was in her more traditional outfit....so I would've followed that show had it actually made it to production.

I also didn't care for how they covered Lara Croft up in the new Tomb Raider game. (And Angelina "I'm Too Artsy Fartsy to Wear Short Shorts" Jolie did nothing for me as Lara Croft in the two movies. The only time I saw her as Lara was in the first few minutes of the first movie..after that, I lost interest.) For me, Lara Croft is short shorts, hot body, English accent, guns, intellect, and ferocity.

But again, I don't lose my shit over these things. I bought the new Tomb Raider game, and despite what they did with Lara, it was still an enjoyable game, and I look forward to its follow up.

If I sound sexist...well, I prefer to think of myself as "old school male" when it comes to hotties, be they real or fictional.
martok2112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 22 2014, 01:08 PM   #230
austen_pierce
Captain
 
austen_pierce's Avatar
 
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Re: Twelve Reasons I Love Star Trek Into Darkness

martok2112 wrote: View Post
Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
Bonus points if this group probably overlaps with the ones complaining that Gal Godot is too skinny to be Wonder Woman or Shailene Woodley isn't pretty enough to play Mary Jane in a Spider-Man movie, or lose their s@#t if Wonder Woman starts wearing pants.
LOL....well, I don't "lose my s@#t if Wonder Woman starts wearing pants", but I don't care for it. To me, Wonder Woman is T&A with intellect and a warrior spirit. I love legs! I hate seeing them covered up. (I especially hated the ridiculous blue diving outfit Lynda Carter wore every time she took a dip in the second and third seasons of Wonder Woman...she was already wearing a bathing suit...) Now, if we talk the unaired, unsold Wonder Woman pilot that starred Adrienne Palicki in the titilating titular role....I would've followed that show. I loved that take on Wonder Woman. Yeah, she started out in pants, but in the final fight of that pilot, she was in her more traditional outfit....so I would've followed that show had it actually made it to production.

I also didn't care for how they covered Lara Croft up in the new Tomb Raider game. (And Angelina "I'm Too Artsy Fartsy to Wear Short Shorts" Jolie did nothing for me as Lara Croft in the two movies. The only time I saw her as Lara was in the first few minutes of the first movie..after that, I lost interest.) For me, Lara Croft is short shorts, hot body, English accent, guns, intellect, and ferocity.

But again, I don't lose my shit over these things. I bought the new Tomb Raider game, and despite what they did with Lara, it was still an enjoyable game, and I look forward to its follow up.

If I sound sexist...well, I prefer to think of myself as "old school male" when it comes to hotties, be they real or fictional.

Well, I'm just old. But not so old I didn't appreciate the sexuality of the moment. I've had no problem with the Uhura and Gaila scenes in 09, and I don't have a problem with the Alice Eve moment. At most I had a quick SMH moment with the "don't look at me (but look at me!)" play out of the scene.
__________________
"I'm not the commander" - Tim Allen
austen_pierce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2014, 05:09 AM   #231
BigJake
Rear Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: Twelve Reasons I Love Star Trek Into Darkness

Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
Bonus points if this group probably overlaps with the ones complaining that Gal Godot is too skinny to be Wonder Woman or Shailene Woodley isn't pretty enough to play Mary Jane in a Spider-Man movie, or lose their s@#t if Wonder Woman starts wearing pants.
So... let's unpack this. You seriously believe that people who dislike the underwear scene "probably" also "lose their s@#t if Wonder Woman starts wearing pants"?

I think it's a tad prudish myself, but can you tell us what you're basing that on?
__________________
It's got electrolytes!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2014, 07:16 AM   #232
martok2112
Commander
 
Re: Twelve Reasons I Love Star Trek Into Darkness

austen_pierce wrote: View Post
martok2112 wrote: View Post
Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
Bonus points if this group probably overlaps with the ones complaining that Gal Godot is too skinny to be Wonder Woman or Shailene Woodley isn't pretty enough to play Mary Jane in a Spider-Man movie, or lose their s@#t if Wonder Woman starts wearing pants.
LOL....well, I don't "lose my s@#t if Wonder Woman starts wearing pants", but I don't care for it. To me, Wonder Woman is T&A with intellect and a warrior spirit. I love legs! I hate seeing them covered up. (I especially hated the ridiculous blue diving outfit Lynda Carter wore every time she took a dip in the second and third seasons of Wonder Woman...she was already wearing a bathing suit...) Now, if we talk the unaired, unsold Wonder Woman pilot that starred Adrienne Palicki in the titilating titular role....I would've followed that show. I loved that take on Wonder Woman. Yeah, she started out in pants, but in the final fight of that pilot, she was in her more traditional outfit....so I would've followed that show had it actually made it to production.

I also didn't care for how they covered Lara Croft up in the new Tomb Raider game. (And Angelina "I'm Too Artsy Fartsy to Wear Short Shorts" Jolie did nothing for me as Lara Croft in the two movies. The only time I saw her as Lara was in the first few minutes of the first movie..after that, I lost interest.) For me, Lara Croft is short shorts, hot body, English accent, guns, intellect, and ferocity.

But again, I don't lose my shit over these things. I bought the new Tomb Raider game, and despite what they did with Lara, it was still an enjoyable game, and I look forward to its follow up.

If I sound sexist...well, I prefer to think of myself as "old school male" when it comes to hotties, be they real or fictional.

Well, I'm just old. But not so old I didn't appreciate the sexuality of the moment. I've had no problem with the Uhura and Gaila scenes in 09, and I don't have a problem with the Alice Eve moment. At most I had a quick SMH moment with the "don't look at me (but look at me!)" play out of the scene.

Ha ha ha! That's precisely what I got out of the scene! I mean, why would Carol have invited Kirk onto the shuttle in the first place? Sure, partially to discuss an upcoming mission and her real reasons to be aboard the Enterprise, but, it was pretty evident that there was a spark even when she and Kirk first met. But, I think she was getting flirty. She figured "men are still gonna be men", and banked on Kirk being curious as to "why did she have me turn around?".

Alan Dean Foster did a really good job with explaining Kirk's impulse, stating that Kirk realized that conversations were more effective when conducted face to face...and that til then, he'd decided that StarFleet undergarments were never quite so fetching.

So yeah, I totally get the "don't look at me....but look at me" impression.
martok2112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2014, 09:09 PM   #233
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Twelve Reasons I Love Star Trek Into Darkness

BigJake wrote: View Post
Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
Bonus points if this group probably overlaps with the ones complaining that Gal Godot is too skinny to be Wonder Woman or Shailene Woodley isn't pretty enough to play Mary Jane in a Spider-Man movie, or lose their s@#t if Wonder Woman starts wearing pants.
So... let's unpack this. You seriously believe that people who dislike the underwear scene "probably" also "lose their s@#t if Wonder Woman starts wearing pants"?

I think it's a tad prudish myself, but can you tell us what you're basing that on?
Assuming Hartzilla is completely serious may not always be the best place to start.

If anything, I could easily see a Venn diagram showing little or no intersection between one group objecting to the Carol Marcus underwear scene and another objecting to the notion of Wonder Woman wearing pants. Hmm, perhaps that's why bonus points: because such coincidence would be relatively unlikely?
__________________
"Recently my 8 year-old cousin asked me, with a wicked twinkle in his eye, if I'd ever microwaved a banana. I'm terrified to try, but I'm sure whatever happens—splattering, abrupt, radioactive—sounds exactly like an Annie Clark guitar solo."
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 24 2014, 03:25 AM   #234
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: Twelve Reasons I Love Star Trek Into Darkness

M'Sharak wrote: View Post
BigJake wrote: View Post
Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
Bonus points if this group probably overlaps with the ones complaining that Gal Godot is too skinny to be Wonder Woman or Shailene Woodley isn't pretty enough to play Mary Jane in a Spider-Man movie, or lose their s@#t if Wonder Woman starts wearing pants.
So... let's unpack this. You seriously believe that people who dislike the underwear scene "probably" also "lose their s@#t if Wonder Woman starts wearing pants"?

I think it's a tad prudish myself, but can you tell us what you're basing that on?
Assuming Hartzilla is completely serious may not always be the best place to start.

If anything, I could easily see a Venn diagram showing little or no intersection between one group objecting to the Carol Marcus underwear scene and another objecting to the notion of Wonder Woman wearing pants. Hmm, perhaps that's why bonus points: because such coincidence would be relatively unlikely?
Sorry about that I was mostly going by how comic book fans had a melt down about Goyer's Shehulk comments being insulting to comic fans despite all the stuff they post that pretty much agrees with him and being cynical enough to think some of the people complaining about Into Darkness's underwear scene were probably overlapping with that group.
Hartzilla2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2014, 08:05 AM   #235
J. Allen
Science Is Magic™
 
J. Allen's Avatar
 
Location: Equestria
Send a message via ICQ to J. Allen Send a message via AIM to J. Allen Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to J. Allen Send a message via Yahoo to J. Allen
Re: Twelve Reasons I Love Star Trek Into Darkness

austen_pierce wrote: View Post
martok2112 wrote: View Post
Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
Bonus points if this group probably overlaps with the ones complaining that Gal Godot is too skinny to be Wonder Woman or Shailene Woodley isn't pretty enough to play Mary Jane in a Spider-Man movie, or lose their s@#t if Wonder Woman starts wearing pants.
LOL....well, I don't "lose my s@#t if Wonder Woman starts wearing pants", but I don't care for it. To me, Wonder Woman is T&A with intellect and a warrior spirit. I love legs! I hate seeing them covered up. (I especially hated the ridiculous blue diving outfit Lynda Carter wore every time she took a dip in the second and third seasons of Wonder Woman...she was already wearing a bathing suit...) Now, if we talk the unaired, unsold Wonder Woman pilot that starred Adrienne Palicki in the titilating titular role....I would've followed that show. I loved that take on Wonder Woman. Yeah, she started out in pants, but in the final fight of that pilot, she was in her more traditional outfit....so I would've followed that show had it actually made it to production.

I also didn't care for how they covered Lara Croft up in the new Tomb Raider game. (And Angelina "I'm Too Artsy Fartsy to Wear Short Shorts" Jolie did nothing for me as Lara Croft in the two movies. The only time I saw her as Lara was in the first few minutes of the first movie..after that, I lost interest.) For me, Lara Croft is short shorts, hot body, English accent, guns, intellect, and ferocity.

But again, I don't lose my shit over these things. I bought the new Tomb Raider game, and despite what they did with Lara, it was still an enjoyable game, and I look forward to its follow up.

If I sound sexist...well, I prefer to think of myself as "old school male" when it comes to hotties, be they real or fictional.

Well, I'm just old. But not so old I didn't appreciate the sexuality of the moment. I've had no problem with the Uhura and Gaila scenes in 09, and I don't have a problem with the Alice Eve moment. At most I had a quick SMH moment with the "don't look at me (but look at me!)" play out of the scene.
To be fair, with the Gaila moments we also got Kirk in his undies, which for some of us, is just as much a treat.
__________________
"I'm Star Swirl the Bearded! Father of the amniomorphic spell?
Did you even read that book I gave you about obscure unicorn history?" - Twilight Sparkle
-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Brony Kingdom
J. Allen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 27 2014, 08:16 AM   #236
teacake
Admiral
 
teacake's Avatar
 
Location: Militant Janeway True Path Devotees Compound. With Sehlats.
Re: Twelve Reasons I Love Star Trek Into Darkness

I loved Kirk in his undies.

__________________

"Damnit Spock. God damnit!" Kirk ST:V
■ ■ ■
Janeway does Melbourne
teacake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29 2014, 01:42 AM   #237
austen_pierce
Captain
 
austen_pierce's Avatar
 
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Re: Twelve Reasons I Love Star Trek Into Darkness

J. Allen wrote: View Post
austen_pierce wrote: View Post
Well, I'm just old. But not so old I didn't appreciate the sexuality of the moment. I've had no problem with the Uhura and Gaila scenes in 09, and I don't have a problem with the Alice Eve moment. At most I had a quick SMH moment with the "don't look at me (but look at me!)" play out of the scene.
To be fair, with the Gaila moments we also got Kirk in his undies, which for some of us, is just as much a treat.
Too bad the Cumberbatch shower scene got cut. I've got no problem with equal opportunity when it comes to showing skin.
__________________
"I'm not the commander" - Tim Allen
austen_pierce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29 2014, 02:07 PM   #238
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: Twelve Reasons I Love Star Trek Into Darkness

I find the 2009 movie to be more "fun"...more of a crowd pleaser, but overall STID is a better movie.

The speech at the end of the movie is one of the best things about the movie, shows character growth and leads into an exciting anticipation of a 5 year mission.

Yes, there was more adventure and exploration in the first 10 min of STID than just about any whole ST movie previous to JJ.

Not the Enterprise in the ocean, but when it comes OUT..is one of the best spectacles I've seen in a movie of any kind.

I also like the Spock-Khan chase, right from the crash of Vengeance..never has a Star Trek world looked so real and solid.

RAMA
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan
RAMA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29 2014, 02:58 PM   #239
grendelsbayne
Commander
 
grendelsbayne's Avatar
 
Location: Netherlands
Re: Twelve Reasons I Love Star Trek Into Darkness

bagofsoup wrote: View Post
Pasi Nurminen wrote: View Post
I guess the principle problem is that TOS, for all its camp and ham, at least endeavoured to have something to say about the world, and it was as much about exploring the human condition as it was about space adventure. JJ Abrams, on the other hand, has nothing to say about the world, and restricts himself to mindless action. TOS was cerebral, at least compared to what JJ Abrams has served.
It's sad that so many people don't get the deeper meanings in J.J.'s new trek films. It always seemed clear cut to me. The first movie was all about getting the enterprise crew together, while the second movie was defining what Starfleet would be about.

The first movie came out after Trek had been legitimately dead for several years, and no one was sure if rebooting the original characters could ever work. By Nero messing up the timeline and the enterprise crew still all getting back together, it showed even in our world today that the message and power of Trek could not be stopped. As Old Spock alluded to, the Universe would eventually "right" itself to help everything come back together again (but just different enough to be fresh and unexplored). By the end of the first film, Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and crew are together again on the Enterprise and the Star Trek adventures that we all grew up to know and love were about to begin in a fresh way.

The second film was all about defining what Starfleet and Kirk's crew would be about. Because of Nero's timeline incursion (and Harrison's 9-11 style attack), Starfleet was looking to become more clandestine and militaristic, and less about peace and betterment and exploration. It's a tale of two leaders (Marcus vs. Kirk), two visions of star fleet (military conflict vs. explorative peace), and two ships (Vengeance vs. Enterprise). Khan is simply the instigator that brings this all to a head.

Admiral Marcus as Head of Starfleet secretly builds the Vengeance to start a pre-emptive war with the Klingons (and any other hostile aggressor) and has no one to be his good conscience. Kirk lost his dad because of Nero, and was "fathered" more recently by Pike. Kirk loses Pike to Khan, and seeks revenge with the help of his new mentor, Pike's former mentor, Admiral Marcus. Kirk is becoming just like Marcus, except that Kirk's crew and close friends (Spock, McCoy, Scotty) courageously step in to act as his conscience, reminding him of what Starfleet is supposed to be about. The slightly altered parallels to Space Seed and Wrath of Khan remind us that the universe is slightly different, yet still unfolding in similar ways. With Marcus and Khan, Kirk doesn't let evil get the best of him, but takes the higher road and challenges Starfleet (and our post 9-11 world) at his closing speech to do the same, to take up that sacred calling and explorative, peace-seeking mission that Starfleet was originally created for.

The movie ends with (1) Kirk and Enterprise crew in place, (2) Starfleet's mission defined, and (3) the Enterprise crew setting out on their original (yet new and fresh) five year mission. Amazing spectacle, engaging stories and powerful meanings that challenge both the Enterprise crew in the future and us in our world today. What more can Star Trek fans really ask for, and why don't (some) of the veteran fans get it? I have no idea!
I agree ID did have some things to say about the world (which is one of the things I liked about it, even though it could have done it better) - but 09 really didn't. 'Kirk and crew getting back together' isn't 'having something to say about the world'. It also didn't really do much at all to resurrect the 'message' of TOS. It was a reasonable reboot of an action centered tos ep which had no real purpose other than the action.
grendelsbayne is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 29 2014, 04:18 PM   #240
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: Twelve Reasons I Love Star Trek Into Darkness

I found Spock's more emotionally "free" characterization in '09 a Trek-like analogy of "coming out", so that satisfied the "message" aspect of Trek for me. Not every episode or movie had a "serious message" to convey (nor should they need to).
Ovation is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.