It's been nearly 24 hours since first viewing the film, and I find that my first reaction is to watch "The Reichenbach Fall" from the second season of Sherlock.
Like many of you, I loved STID until the Khan reveal, learned to love the alternate universe Khan, and then cringed with the reactor core scene and Spock's shout. The biggest letdown, for me, was that I was hoping that their work in 2009 laid the groundwork for an original adventure that would make for fine Trek. Up until Khan's reveal, I felt we had that and, perhaps, the best villain since Khan.
The reactor scene still has me feeling most sour about the film. This has got me thinking: I love Steven Moffat's Sherlock, which is a retelling of the old stories in modern London with all sorts of twists. Why does Sherlock get a pass for reusing material when I won't allow for the same with Star Trek? Is it the power of Cumberbatch and Freeman in those iconic roles that makes it great in my mind? If that's the case, Cumberbatch makes a great Harrison/Khan...what's my problem? Sherlock redid the most memorable moment from The Final Problem with plenty of twists, reversals, and similarities...yet I love it.
Why do I love one and not the other? This contradiction makes me very interested to see Into Darkness again. I think that my disappointment is my own fault. I wanted something original, but got a twist on an old story that worked really well for so much of the film.
For people who feel like I do, has a second viewing made the film better in your eyes?
Like many of you, I loved STID until the Khan reveal, learned to love the alternate universe Khan, and then cringed with the reactor core scene and Spock's shout. The biggest letdown, for me, was that I was hoping that their work in 2009 laid the groundwork for an original adventure that would make for fine Trek. Up until Khan's reveal, I felt we had that and, perhaps, the best villain since Khan.
The reactor scene still has me feeling most sour about the film. This has got me thinking: I love Steven Moffat's Sherlock, which is a retelling of the old stories in modern London with all sorts of twists. Why does Sherlock get a pass for reusing material when I won't allow for the same with Star Trek? Is it the power of Cumberbatch and Freeman in those iconic roles that makes it great in my mind? If that's the case, Cumberbatch makes a great Harrison/Khan...what's my problem? Sherlock redid the most memorable moment from The Final Problem with plenty of twists, reversals, and similarities...yet I love it.
Why do I love one and not the other? This contradiction makes me very interested to see Into Darkness again. I think that my disappointment is my own fault. I wanted something original, but got a twist on an old story that worked really well for so much of the film.
For people who feel like I do, has a second viewing made the film better in your eyes?
