quote:
Everything of value is worth arguing. TOS was of value - that JJ Abrams take on it is completely disposable. But, again, I accept I'm in the minority. Whatever.

This is the problem with people who are far too invested in the originals to accept a new take on their favorite shows. I'm not saying I don't understand where you're coming from. I get it. But taken alone, the JJ Abrams Star Trek was a great film. True, Eric Bana was bad, but Chris Pine as the smart arse Kirk, Karl Urban as Bones, Zoe Saldana as Uhura... it all worked and it worked well together.

If you can divorce yourself from the "source" material, and look at the movie more objectively, you'll find that it is, at the very least, a fairly tightly done, well imagined story that takes the basic ideas of Star Trek and makes them into something more action packed and geared toward a modern audience, all without devolving into Michael Bay-dom. And the time travel plot device was perfectly used since Abrams clearly wanted to take the franchise in a different direction so he wouldn't be restrained by the past.

Star Trek was, and is, a great movie. Despite the fact that I think Abrams is somewhat overrated.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Ace Midnight

Between sanity and madness

Member since Dec 2006

89632 posts

Posted on 2/1/13 at 10:22 am to LoveThatMoney

quote:
If you can divorce yourself from the "source" material

Aren't I interested in the stupid movie in the first place because I'm a Star Trek fan?

quote:
But taken alone, the JJ Abrams Star Trek was a great film.

Alone from what?

quote:
True, Eric Bana was bad, but Chris Pine as the smart arse Kirk, Karl Urban as Bones, Zoe Saldana as Uhura... it all worked and it worked well together.

I hate Chris Pine, all of the characters he's ever played, including his take on Kirk. Karl Urban gets an "A" for effort - honestly the script failed McCoy, rather than Urban. Ditto for Scotty. I didn't care for the Uhura, either.

When Star Trek is at its best, it is about the characters and their interaction, particularly the big 3, Kirk as the Id, Spock as the Ego and McCoy as the Superego. Abrams doesn't appear to care about any of that, as long as it is "hip", "dope", fast-paced and action-oriented. And lens flares.

Compare that to Whedon's Avengers. In Abrams' defense, I had high expectations for Star Trek, probably impossible ones, but I only went to see Whedon's Avengers, because he's on my very, very short list of trusted filmmakers. The movie was very faithful in its treatment of characters. I am not a complete slave to the source material - I think that what Robert Downey, Jr. has done with the Iron Man character is a departure, but it works.

quote:
look at the movie more objectively, you'll find that it is, at the very least, a fairly tightly done, well imagined story that takes the basic ideas of Star Trek and makes them into something more action packed and geared toward a modern audience, all without devolving into Michael Bay-dom.

I don't watch Star Trek for the action sequences, I was raised on TOS - we had to overlook the poor special effects, but we watched for the characters. Those characters have been killed and replaced by something else. I guess most other TOS fans are fine with that. I'm not.

From where I sat, Michael Bay might as well have made Star Trek.

This post was edited on 2/1/13 at 10:30 am

2 ...

Report Post

Movie/TV Board - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board