Reusing a character does not a rehash make... again, you're an individual, make up your own mind when you SEE it and have an informed opinion.
Yeah, you're right. I just had a moment of doubt.
Just remember, that if you go in expecting to dislike it, you probably will, as a more critical eye will tear apart any film, no matter how well made.
The reverse is true as well. If you expect to like a movie, you will be more forgiving. As a rule, I am critical, I won't hide my satisfaction or dissatisfaction with this movie no matter what. I will go into it with an open mind, but even if it was spoiler-free, they would get a more critical eye for using Khan again. It begs for comparisons. It begs of trying to make money with what is bankable. Nero was a re-hash of every Star Trek villain, who's only motivation seems to be revenge. They have been trying to re-do Khan for ages. I was critical enough of the first film that I wanted Nero's lines stripped from him the moment I left the movie theater. That's just how I think. My opinions have hardened since 2009 was released. I have had a chance to re-watch Star Trek--from TOS, TNG, DS9, Most of VOY, and Most of ENT, all the movies--and I come into this movie with several things I want as a fan. This was true before I clicked on any spoilers:
1. Something fresh and new. From 2010 on, I have said "I don't want a Greatest Hits. I am so afraid that this will be like Batman in that you put a Joker in the movie, tell Batman's origin every so often (Batman, Mask of the Phantasm, Batman Begins, etc) and people flock to see it. Part of the reason they do that so well is that Batman never got it right. There's always room for improvement. The difference between Star Trek and Batman is that they have been doing it well, social commentary, imagination of what we would find in space, that I don't want that to be lost. Khan, back to when Benico Del Toro was rumored to be Khan, represents trying to do the arch-nemesis off Star Trek, the Joker, to the novice. II was great on many levels, including the revenge villain, but it's those other levels that I have continued to watch II for.
2. Star Trek, to me, is about the wonderment of what we would find in Space--that's why I like small moments like Picard looking out the window in Star Trek: Insurrection. Kirk represented in the Original Series, the attitude of the 1960s Space Program--brash, unafraid, ambitious, and successful. It seems to me that we've lost that and it's something I want Star Trek to continue into this next generation. With JJ Abrams putting lens flares in the first film, and calling it the "bright future" of Trek, I was hopeful. Now, I wonder if that's not just a set-up for us to lose that bright future in the next installment of movies. It
was bright, before Nero changed it all.
3. Social Commentary--I like my Star Trek to have something for me to think about when I come out of the movie theater or turn off the television. Special Effects are good for the suspension of disbelief, but they fade in time. 15 years ago, Insurrection looked state-of-the-art. It doesn't anymore. If all a movie can say is "wow, that looked cool!" it has the shelf-life of 10 years, tops. I like timeless Trek where I can apply the history of the world, current headlines, to the story. It shows the imagination and brilliance of the writer to see something timeless. If Trek isn't timeless, part of the reason I don't like the first one as much as some (I think it's mediocre, run-of-the-mill Trek about nature-nurture if you see anything there), then okay.
4. I want a plot that makes sense. Too much of 09 relies on flimsy plotting and calls it "destiny." Like Kirk ending up on Delta Vega and finding Prime Spock. That's quite a coincidence and in the movie theater, it took me right out of it. "That's flimsy." So this film will get a critical eye where this is concerned.
Those are my prejudices before ever reading a spoiler. Don't answer this question--it's rhetorical--I don't want it to influence me. Do you think I will like this movie?
