@Superfriend said:
@John1912 said:
@Superfriend said:
Ugh.. well that Star Trek film wasn´t bad, so I guess they could have picked a worse director.
That film was fucking awful.
Well, you don´t seem to like the film at all, huh? I will put it this way: I went to a premiere type event for the JJ Abrams Star Trek where a lot of fans ran around in Klingon gear and they showed the very first Star Trek movie in a seperate room.. THAT film is kinda shitty. I like a lot of the other movies.. but THAT film- oh god.
After being reminded of that, I really enjoyed the new film even if it had weird JJ Abrams stuff all over it, like fast paced everything just for the sake of it, little to no exposition for certain characters, a kind of weak bad guy (that´s why he always seems to cast excellent actors for those- they have to save the mediocre baddy), a kinda goofy twist and fan service, and the movie is over before you know it (again, that guy likes his movies short and FAST paced).
But overall, it ain´t bad. You could do worse for your reboot. Like casting Andrew Garfield as Spiderman and making it all "edgy".
Yea, I just rewatched it last night to make sure I wasnt nuts and the IMDB rating of 8 was accurate. I found very little redeeming in the movie. Basically Spock. Kirk was a COMPLETE tool. He has absolutely no people skills. All he did was run amuk trying to be the biggest frat boy he could. Id almost like Bones as well if it didnt feel like he was running on and off camera as making his lines feel like complete jokes.
"The fast paced everything" was ridiculous. The time compression of events is staggering. In, out of Fleet academy to First Officer to Captain at light speed. I mean WTF? Every scene was just rushed ruining any impact it should have, as well as destroying any suspension of disbelief.
Barring that Star Trek is not meant to feel like a haphazardly rushed high octane fuel ride. Even looking at the movie as a stand alone piece, or even having nothing to do with Star Trek, its just bad.
Log in to comment