Screw the Bechdel test. It's limiting. It's pandering. And it's stupid.
How is it pandering? Pandering means "a person who caters for vulgar desires, esp in order to make money", for instance, putting Alice Eve in here underwear on many prominent ads. Or in slightly less sexual contexts it can mean doing things simply because the fans demand it. Or the makers THINK the fans demand it. Like the opening song of a James Bond movie. They HAVE to be in there. I say that as an insane Bond fan. They are tradition, they absolutely must be there. Now, in reality it doesn't affect the movie one way or another. But THEY HAVE TO BE IN THERE.
Pandering would imply that filmmakers try to adhere to the test to pander to feminists, but they don't. At all. It's merely used as a means of discussion to talk about how female characters are involved in or used in a work of fiction. It doesn't pander to anyone or limit anyone because it has no power over anyone.
Screw the Bechdel test. It's limiting. It's pandering. And it's stupid.
How is it pandering? Pandering means "a person who caters for vulgar desires, esp in order to make money", for instance, putting Alice Eve in here underwear on many prominent ads. Or in slightly less sexual contexts it can mean doing things simply because the fans demand it. Or the makers THINK the fans demand it. Like the opening song of a James Bond movie. They HAVE to be in there. I say that as an insane Bond fan. They are tradition, they absolutely must be there. Now, in reality it doesn't affect the movie one way or another. But THEY HAVE TO BE IN THERE.
Pandering would imply that filmmakers try to adhere to the test to pander to feminists, but they don't. At all. It's merely used as a means of discussion to talk about how female characters are involved in or used in a work of fiction. It doesn't pander to anyone or limit anyone because it has no power over anyone.
I won't put words in Peter's mouth, but in my opinion, it's pandering to people that are looking for an argument in against the movie or in favor of arguing the existence of sexism. The reference to being stuffed into a refrigerator made it pandering.
Also, while the TOS characters referenced were semi-regulars, there were not what I would consider to be strong, independent characters.
In my experience, people will ALWAYS find something to criticize. With that knowledge, I like to create that complaint to satisfy that desire by some. It's better then getting nitpicked to death.
Depends on the situation. In this movie, it might be the Alice Eve moment.
At my work, it might be doing an average performance on a case, making several editorial mistakes on a final report. It'll come up in my yearly review, but its something I know about in advance & not get blindsided.
It falls in line with my favorite subject to study: misdirection. Get the mark(s) to focus on what you want them to while you're doing something else.
It falls in line with my favorite subject to study: misdirection. Get the mark(s) to focus on what you want them to while you're doing something else.
M
I have found that this works in the military for certain low level inspections as well. Inspectors usually only have a set amount of time to go over everything. If you start throwing questions about how something works or how to improve something at them, it usually kills enough time so that they do not dig too deep into a program.
See above story on the multiple, could be confusing, releases of Blu-Ray. Different retailers will have different special features and according to the story above, only ITunes has a version that includes a commentary track.
Finally saw this movie. Wow, it was great. It didn't redo the Khan movie, but incorporated aspects of it. Between the last Star Trek movie & this one, I would've been a huge Star Trek fan years ago.
Its great if you're not a longtime fan, its still interesting & easy to follow. I really like how the last 2 movies aren't Kirk, Spock, & Bones, THEN everyone else. Kirk actually seems to spend more time with the other crew members.
Oh and that Alice Eve bra scene was easily a throwaway scene. I don't get the big deal that was made about it.
Liked it quite a bit more the 2nd time around on dvd. The effects were amazing and gorgeous (particularly the city stuff at the end). Dont know why that didnt impress me as much or stand out the first time? The death toll in San Fran mustve been near Man of Steel numbers lol.
Finally saw it the other night and while I enjoyed it, I think too much of the movie hinged on people having already seen Wrath of Khan. I felt that Khan's motivations and schemes were largely glossed over on the assumption that you already knew them from the first time around, and a lot of the mirroring of major plot points (particularly the warp core chamber scene) would be lost on people who hadn't seen WoK (my wife, for instance, who enjoyed the first Abrams movie but couldn't give a crap about old school Trek).
Basically, it's pretty good if you've done the homework, but if not, I can imagine you'd spend a lot of the movie saying "So what?", much the way I did having watched The Hunger Games without ever having read the book, where my wife had to explain to me why Rue was so important despite having less than 10 minutes of screen time.
Hoping we get a third, and that now that Hollywood has both their all-important origin story and the recontextualization of the most famous story out of the way, they can movie onto something new.
Finally saw it the other night and while I enjoyed it, I think too much of the movie hinged on people having already seen Wrath of Khan. I felt that Khan's motivations and schemes were largely glossed over on the assumption that you already knew them from the first time around, and a lot of the mirroring of major plot points (particularly the warp core chamber scene) would be lost on people who hadn't seen WoK (my wife, for instance, who enjoyed the first Abrams movie but couldn't give a crap about old school Trek).
Basically, it's pretty good if you've done the homework, but if not, I can imagine you'd spend a lot of the movie saying "So what?", much the way I did having watched The Hunger Games without ever having read the book, where my wife had to explain to me why Rue was so important despite having less than 10 minutes of screen time.
Hoping we get a third, and that now that Hollywood has both their all-important origin story and the recontextualization of the most famous story out of the way, they can movie onto something new.
Are we clones? Mirror-universe doubles? Alternate time-stream dopplegangers? Because, word-for-word, your post expresses everything I thought watching Into Darkness AND managed to retell an incident from my life, with my own wife.
My girl never saw Wrath of Khan. She knew he was the villain. She teared up at Kirk's "death". In short, it worked for her without any need to do homework :)
In a way - the movie reflects this. Old Spock is Trek fandom. New Spock is those that "did their homework". And the rest of the crew are our wives/girlfriends/anyone else who just went to see the movie for what it was. The villain was the dude killing people. He gave enough cause to be the villain. The Spock/Kirk relationship of this version was made stronger. Explosions. Fights. Some awesome running scenes. Job done.
My girl never saw Wrath of Khan. She knew he was the villain. She teared up at Kirk's "death". In short, it worked for her without any need to do homework :)
In a way - the movie reflects this. Old Spock is Trek fandom. New Spock is those that "did their homework". And the rest of the crew are our wives/girlfriends/anyone else who just went to see the movie for what it was. The villain was the dude killing people. He gave enough cause to be the villain. The Spock/Kirk relationship of this version was made stronger. Explosions. Fights. Some awesome running scenes. Job done.
I'm going to completely agree. I have seen WoK several times, but had no idea the extent of his originals that were revealed in Space Seeds. I did not do any research until after I saw this movie. Any differences between WoK and Into Darkness were unknown to me. Hell, until I researched Khan, I did not even know the importance of Alice Eve's character.
Any differences between WoK and Into Darkness were unknown to me.
M
I'm surprised you didn't see any differences considering you've seen both movies. I think the the major differences is that Khan in "Wrath of Khan" had personality, flair, motivation, and was an actual villain. Benedict's Khan in "Into Darkness" was boring, flat, two dimensional, pointless, a caricature instead of an actual character, and he wasn't even a villain. I'm not even sure why he was there except for the pandering for the fans part.
Also, Kirk's "death" had no meaning here because there's no history. And in the history they do have, Kirk and Spock clearly hate each other and tolerate each other at best. There's no friendship here.
Any differences between WoK and Into Darkness were unknown to me.
M
I'm surprised you didn't see any differences considering you've seen both movies. I think the the major differences is that Khan in "Wrath of Khan" had personality, flair, motivation, and was an actual villain. Benedict's Khan in "Into Darkness" was boring, flat, two dimensional, pointless, a caricature instead of an actual character, and he wasn't even a villain. I'm not even sure why he was there except for the pandering for the fans part.
Also, Kirk's "death" had no meaning here because there's no history. And in the history they do have, Kirk and Spock clearly hate each other and tolerate each other at best. There's no friendship here.
There's nothing but a pile steaming of shit.
There are episodes of the TV series where the space crew encounter gangsters & cowboys and this movie that actually involves space is a pile of shit?!
Was Khan actually a villain, or just seeking revenge for being exiled onto a desolated planet? Aside from the corny dialogue, didn't Khan really only want Kirk to pay for what he did? Revenge automatically makes you a villain?
Again, in Into Darkness, didn't Khan initially just want revenge on a Markus for taking his fellow crew members? Sure it escalated, but eventually he focused on Kirk for the double-cross.
As for Kirk's death, you don't believe they had a strong enough relationship for Spock to care? They were on the Enterprise together for a year. If this was the original series, you think Spock wouldn't have cared Kirk died? That it was manufactured in this movie?
Spock sees why Kirk saved him in the beginning of the movie. Kirk also had a moment to realize what Pike actually was telling him.
Finally saw it the other night and while I enjoyed it, I think too much of the movie hinged on people having already seen Wrath of Khan. I felt that Khan's motivations and schemes were largely glossed over on the assumption that you already knew them from the first time around, and a lot of the mirroring of major plot points (particularly the warp core chamber scene) would be lost on people who hadn't seen WoK (my wife, for instance, who enjoyed the first Abrams movie but couldn't give a crap about old school Trek).
Basically, it's pretty good if you've done the homework, but if not, I can imagine you'd spend a lot of the movie saying "So what?", much the way I did having watched The Hunger Games without ever having read the book, where my wife had to explain to me why Rue was so important despite having less than 10 minutes of screen time.
Hoping we get a third, and that now that Hollywood has both their all-important origin story and the recontextualization of the most famous story out of the way, they can movie onto something new.
I think I had the opposite reaction, though since I'll never be able to "unsee" Wrath Of Khan, I suppose I'll never be 100% certain.
But, the whole time I watched Into Darkness, I kept looking for parallels and similarities to Wrath, and I think that probably hindered my enjoyment. Did I think Kirk's death and resurrection was badly handled because it actually was, or because it felt off to me since I'd already seen it with the roles reversed? Was I disappointed that Khan turned out to be a villain yet again because I'd already seen that? Who knows, but I do know that I didn't engage in that behavior while watching the first film.
I agree, though, that I'm ready for them to move on to something new. There really aren't anymore movies I think they could argue would be ripe for a re-do, and even if they borrow from the TV show, a big budget two hour film is going to be tough to compare to a 45 minute episode of sixties television.
And enough with Earth, get them into space already.
Finally saw it the other night and while I enjoyed it, I think too much of the movie hinged on people having already seen Wrath of Khan. I felt that Khan's motivations and schemes were largely glossed over on the assumption that you already knew them from the first time around, and a lot of the mirroring of major plot points (particularly the warp core chamber scene) would be lost on people who hadn't seen WoK (my wife, for instance, who enjoyed the first Abrams movie but couldn't give a crap about old school Trek).
Basically, it's pretty good if you've done the homework, but if not, I can imagine you'd spend a lot of the movie saying "So what?", much the way I did having watched The Hunger Games without ever having read the book, where my wife had to explain to me why Rue was so important despite having less than 10 minutes of screen time.
Hoping we get a third, and that now that Hollywood has both their all-important origin story and the recontextualization of the most famous story out of the way, they can movie onto something new.
I think I had the opposite reaction, though since I'll never be able to "unsee" Wrath Of Khan, I suppose I'll never be 100% certain.
But, the whole time I watched Into Darkness, I kept looking for parallels and similarities to Wrath, and I think that probably hindered my enjoyment. Did I think Kirk's death and resurrection was badly handled because it actually was, or because it felt off to me since I'd already seen it with the roles reversed? Was I disappointed that Khan turned out to be a villain yet again because I'd already seen that? Who knows, but I do know that I didn't engage in that behavior while watching the first film.
I agree, though, that I'm ready for them to move on to something new. There really aren't anymore movies I think they could argue would be ripe for a re-do, and even if they borrow from the TV show, a big budget two hour film is going to be tough to compare to a 45 minute episode of sixties television.
And enough with Earth, get them into space already.
Unless I'm mistaken, weren't people clamor ing for Khan after the first movie? I understand something new could be more interesting to longtime fans, but didnt we get a character we wanted?
I'd argue this movie wasn't really for Trekkies. It was made for everyone else (much like current relaunched franchises). If the longtime fans enjoyed the movie, then its a bonus not THE target audience.
I was never a Star Trek fan. In fact, I've really only seen the movies. WoK is by far my favorite of the series before the relaunch. I also really enjoyed this one too. It had a great antigonist without being a remake.
Just about everyone I know who heavily disliked this movie are longtime fans of the franchise.
My girl never saw Wrath of Khan. She knew he was the villain. She teared up at Kirk's "death". In short, it worked for her without any need to do homework :)
Same with my wife. I don't buy into the "you need to have seen WoK" BS.
My girl never saw Wrath of Khan. She knew he was the villain. She teared up at Kirk's "death". In short, it worked for her without any need to do homework :)
Same with my wife. I don't buy into the "you need to have seen WoK" BS.
If the character's name would've really been Harrison instead of Khan, the complaints from longtime fans would've been "they should've called him Khan." Harrison or Khan, if you never saw WoK you would've never miss a beat.
If a working understanding of - and comparison to - the events of Wrath of Khan wasn't at least a little bit important to the plot, they wouldn't have had Old Spock come in to summarize it for the audience who hadn't already seen it.
But Old Spock only described Khan very briefly. It was about 45 seconds. If someone never saw WoK, they'd never know about the death, the Vulcan fib, or Scotty knockout.
But Old Spock only described Khan very briefly. It was about 45 seconds. If someone never saw WoK, they'd never know about the death, the Vulcan fib, or Scotty knockout.
M
I'm not saying it covers that material... that works on its own, but if you're familiar with WoK, you get added meaning. But it does explain Khan's motivations and backstory better than any other part in the actual story ("There these people in the torpedoes. We found them on some ship. Because reasons."). It's the Vulcan Expository Pinch!
There are episodes of the TV series where the space crew encounter gangsters & cowboys and this movie that actually involves space is a pile of shit?!
Was Khan actually a villain, or just seeking revenge for being exiled onto a desolated planet? Aside from the corny dialogue, didn't Khan really only want Kirk to pay for what he did? Revenge automatically makes you a villain?
Again, in Into Darkness, didn't Khan initially just want revenge on a Markus for taking his fellow crew members? Sure it escalated, but eventually he focused on Kirk for the double-cross.
As for Kirk's death, you don't believe they had a strong enough relationship for Spock to care? They were on the Enterprise together for a year. If this was the original series, you think Spock wouldn't have cared Kirk died? That it was manufactured in this movie?
Spock sees why Kirk saved him in the beginning of the movie. Kirk also had a moment to realize what Pike actually was telling him.
M
Not saying that there weren't bad episodes of TOS or that even Star Trek had to involve space exploration.
I don't know what Khan was aside from fan service. He didn't really do anything. He didn't even break into Section 31, which was the one thing he should have done. They could have easily taken him out and the movie would have been slightly better, maybe even a lot better.
It's a fact that Abram's Spock and Kirk don't have a strong relationship. Merely going by the two movies, they clearly hate each other. There's no trust as they constantly argue and disagree with the other's orders or plans. You might think that they had the best relationship in that off screen year but there's no evidence of that.
In fact, for a similar thing, we can look at Episode 2. As bad as the Prequels were, at least that short scene in the elevator talked about that time off screen and it tried to make it seem like Anakin and Obi-Wan were friends. It still failed because Obi-Wan was clearly annoyed with Anakin the entire time but it tried.
If it was TOS, Spock would have cared about Kirk dying because they actually do care about each other as you see it all the time on the screen, big and small. In the Abram's movies, they try to pigeon hole the fact that they care in the last few minutes but that doesn't outweigh the 99% of time where they clearly hate each other.
Well, it's a different - and seemingly accelerated - timeline, and we're seeing Kirk and Spock at an earlier point in their relationship than we did when TOS started, so I think at this point they're still trying to figure each other out. There's a clear respect there that has built from the course of events in the first movie, but they're definitely not quite there yet. Also, this is pre-5 year mission Kirk who still needs to learn a lot of maturity, just as Spock needs to accept the moral (and logical) gray area that his human side can bring to the thinking instilled in him by his Vulcan upbringing. By the end of the movie, though, I think we're definitely seeing the start of that.
Also, how awesome were Karl Urban and John Cho? Urban pretty much was DeForrest Kelly... the voice, the mannerisms, he had 'em all down. And Cho's Sulu was great... he might not be channeling George Takei as much as Urban does Kelly, but he still has a good lock on the character, and it's very believable to see him moving up to the big chair before this series is over (which it really seems like they were setting up here).
Simon Pegg was fun as Scotty again, too. His part of the script was a nice balance of the sort of miracle working awesomeness we expect from Scotty and the sort of comedic character that Pegg excels at. Too much competence and we'd wonder why Pegg didn't get to be funny, and too much comedy would have been, well, Star Trek V all over again.
There are episodes of the TV series where the space crew encounter gangsters & cowboys and this movie that actually involves space is a pile of shit?!
Was Khan actually a villain, or just seeking revenge for being exiled onto a desolated planet? Aside from the corny dialogue, didn't Khan really only want Kirk to pay for what he did? Revenge automatically makes you a villain?
Again, in Into Darkness, didn't Khan initially just want revenge on a Markus for taking his fellow crew members? Sure it escalated, but eventually he focused on Kirk for the double-cross.
As for Kirk's death, you don't believe they had a strong enough relationship for Spock to care? They were on the Enterprise together for a year. If this was the original series, you think Spock wouldn't have cared Kirk died? That it was manufactured in this movie?
Spock sees why Kirk saved him in the beginning of the movie. Kirk also had a moment to realize what Pike actually was telling him.
M
Not saying that there weren't bad episodes of TOS or that even Star Trek had to involve space exploration.
I don't know what Khan was aside from fan service. He didn't really do anything. He didn't even break into Section 31, which was the one thing he should have done. They could have easily taken him out and the movie would have been slightly better, maybe even a lot better.
It's a fact that Abram's Spock and Kirk don't have a strong relationship. Merely going by the two movies, they clearly hate each other. There's no trust as they constantly argue and disagree with the other's orders or plans. You might think that they had the best relationship in that off screen year but there's no evidence of that.
In fact, for a similar thing, we can look at Episode 2. As bad as the Prequels were, at least that short scene in the elevator talked about that time off screen and it tried to make it seem like Anakin and Obi-Wan were friends. It still failed because Obi-Wan was clearly annoyed with Anakin the entire time but it tried.
If it was TOS, Spock would have cared about Kirk dying because they actually do care about each other as you see it all the time on the screen, big and small. In the Abram's movies, they try to pigeon hole the fact that they care in the last few minutes but that doesn't outweigh the 99% of time where they clearly hate each other.
I didn't get that about their relationship. I have a couple friends that are by-the-book type of guys and I don't believe they hate me anymore then I hate them. We don't see eye-to-eye in methodology, but we're still great friends.
I think the climax of the movie demonstrated the foundation of their friendship. Kirk used Spock's logic & Spock used Kirk's "out of the box" thinking. Both of which before Kirk died. I don't think that happens without a good friendship between the two.
Finally saw it the other night and while I enjoyed it, I think too much of the movie hinged on people having already seen Wrath of Khan. I felt that Khan's motivations and schemes were largely glossed over on the assumption that you already knew them from the first time around, and a lot of the mirroring of major plot points (particularly the warp core chamber scene) would be lost on people who hadn't seen WoK (my wife, for instance, who enjoyed the first Abrams movie but couldn't give a crap about old school Trek).
Basically, it's pretty good if you've done the homework, but if not, I can imagine you'd spend a lot of the movie saying "So what?", much the way I did having watched The Hunger Games without ever having read the book, where my wife had to explain to me why Rue was so important despite having less than 10 minutes of screen time.
Hoping we get a third, and that now that Hollywood has both their all-important origin story and the recontextualization of the most famous story out of the way, they can movie onto something new.
Totally Agree. Like when they are interrogating the villain and they ask him his name and EggsBenedict Cumberbun growls "Kaaaaaahhhhhnnnnnnnnn" and puts a lot of extra growl into it I felt like, "Is this supposed to have any meaning to us?" Because the way he says it acts like it should mean something to Kirk and Spock. It doesn't mean a single thing. They have no idea who he is. Anyways...
My review: Bottom Line, truly great looking movie. The effects people at ILM really did great looking work. Overall... did not enjoy and had many huge problems with. Won't bore everyone here with them when other people have expressed them better. I did talk on my youtube channel about it for.... nearly 40 minutes....
If you care to expose yourself to my insanity, you can find it HERE
I think there is generally a divide that says, big fans of Star Trek felt this movie was ok but extremely derivitave, offer almost nothing new to the Star Trek canon despite the promise we were given when this alternate timeline was established even failing to expand on the differences that are already established, instead leaning on the original material to fill in the gaps, and non-fans who saw a colorful, great looking, decent sci-fi action thriller.
On a side note: if I have to see one more movie with a scene where a villian who just wants to see the world burn meets our hero face-to-face through the "bars" of a jail cell, I'll scream. I think we can retire that trope to the same closet as bullet time and the crashing helicopter that chops everything in its path like a lawnmower.
I had no issues whatsoever with the elements that they've hit from the original series. To me, one of the key things is establishing commonalities and differences early so that people can stop looking for them and start focusing on the fun.
Also, any time a little alien member of Star Fleet can have an extended video bomb scene riding a photon torpedo like Slim Pickens in Dr Strangelove, it's a win.
Finally, they referenced the Gorn. All things are better with Gorn.
Comments
Pandering would imply that filmmakers try to adhere to the test to pander to feminists, but they don't. At all. It's merely used as a means of discussion to talk about how female characters are involved in or used in a work of fiction. It doesn't pander to anyone or limit anyone because it has no power over anyone.
Also, while the TOS characters referenced were semi-regulars, there were not what I would consider to be strong, independent characters.
M
I'm confused. Create what complaint?
At my work, it might be doing an average performance on a case, making several editorial mistakes on a final report. It'll come up in my yearly review, but its something I know about in advance & not get blindsided.
It falls in line with my favorite subject to study: misdirection. Get the mark(s) to focus on what you want them to while you're doing something else.
M
See above story on the multiple, could be confusing, releases of Blu-Ray. Different retailers will have different special features and according to the story above, only ITunes has a version that includes a commentary track.
Its great if you're not a longtime fan, its still interesting & easy to follow. I really like how the last 2 movies aren't Kirk, Spock, & Bones, THEN everyone else. Kirk actually seems to spend more time with the other crew members.
Oh and that Alice Eve bra scene was easily a throwaway scene. I don't get the big deal that was made about it.
M
Basically, it's pretty good if you've done the homework, but if not, I can imagine you'd spend a lot of the movie saying "So what?", much the way I did having watched The Hunger Games without ever having read the book, where my wife had to explain to me why Rue was so important despite having less than 10 minutes of screen time.
Hoping we get a third, and that now that Hollywood has both their all-important origin story and the recontextualization of the most famous story out of the way, they can movie onto something new.
In a way - the movie reflects this. Old Spock is Trek fandom. New Spock is those that "did their homework". And the rest of the crew are our wives/girlfriends/anyone else who just went to see the movie for what it was. The villain was the dude killing people. He gave enough cause to be the villain. The Spock/Kirk relationship of this version was made stronger. Explosions. Fights. Some awesome running scenes. Job done.
M
Also, Kirk's "death" had no meaning here because there's no history. And in the history they do have, Kirk and Spock clearly hate each other and tolerate each other at best. There's no friendship here.
There's nothing but a pile steaming of shit.
Was Khan actually a villain, or just seeking revenge for being exiled onto a desolated planet? Aside from the corny dialogue, didn't Khan really only want Kirk to pay for what he did? Revenge automatically makes you a villain?
Again, in Into Darkness, didn't Khan initially just want revenge on a Markus for taking his fellow crew members? Sure it escalated, but eventually he focused on Kirk for the double-cross.
As for Kirk's death, you don't believe they had a strong enough relationship for Spock to care? They were on the Enterprise together for a year. If this was the original series, you think Spock wouldn't have cared Kirk died? That it was manufactured in this movie?
Spock sees why Kirk saved him in the beginning of the movie. Kirk also had a moment to realize what Pike actually was telling him.
M
But, the whole time I watched Into Darkness, I kept looking for parallels and similarities to Wrath, and I think that probably hindered my enjoyment. Did I think Kirk's death and resurrection was badly handled because it actually was, or because it felt off to me since I'd already seen it with the roles reversed? Was I disappointed that Khan turned out to be a villain yet again because I'd already seen that? Who knows, but I do know that I didn't engage in that behavior while watching the first film.
I agree, though, that I'm ready for them to move on to something new. There really aren't anymore movies I think they could argue would be ripe for a re-do, and even if they borrow from the TV show, a big budget two hour film is going to be tough to compare to a 45 minute episode of sixties television.
And enough with Earth, get them into space already.
I'd argue this movie wasn't really for Trekkies. It was made for everyone else (much like current relaunched franchises). If the longtime fans enjoyed the movie, then its a bonus not THE target audience.
I was never a Star Trek fan. In fact, I've really only seen the movies. WoK is by far my favorite of the series before the relaunch. I also really enjoyed this one too. It had a great antigonist without being a remake.
Just about everyone I know who heavily disliked this movie are longtime fans of the franchise.
M
M
M
Not saying that there weren't bad episodes of TOS or that even Star Trek had to involve space exploration.
I don't know what Khan was aside from fan service. He didn't really do anything. He didn't even break into Section 31, which was the one thing he should have done. They could have easily taken him out and the movie would have been slightly better, maybe even a lot better.
It's a fact that Abram's Spock and Kirk don't have a strong relationship. Merely going by the two movies, they clearly hate each other. There's no trust as they constantly argue and disagree with the other's orders or plans. You might think that they had the best relationship in that off screen year but there's no evidence of that.
In fact, for a similar thing, we can look at Episode 2. As bad as the Prequels were, at least that short scene in the elevator talked about that time off screen and it tried to make it seem like Anakin and Obi-Wan were friends. It still failed because Obi-Wan was clearly annoyed with Anakin the entire time but it tried.
If it was TOS, Spock would have cared about Kirk dying because they actually do care about each other as you see it all the time on the screen, big and small. In the Abram's movies, they try to pigeon hole the fact that they care in the last few minutes but that doesn't outweigh the 99% of time where they clearly hate each other.
EDIT: I suck at HTML
Simon Pegg was fun as Scotty again, too. His part of the script was a nice balance of the sort of miracle working awesomeness we expect from Scotty and the sort of comedic character that Pegg excels at. Too much competence and we'd wonder why Pegg didn't get to be funny, and too much comedy would have been, well, Star Trek V all over again.
My review: Bottom Line, truly great looking movie. The effects people at ILM really did great looking work. Overall... did not enjoy and had many huge problems with. Won't bore everyone here with them when other people have expressed them better. I did talk on my youtube channel about it for.... nearly 40 minutes....
If you care to expose yourself to my insanity, you can find it HERE
On a side note: if I have to see one more movie with a scene where a villian who just wants to see the world burn meets our hero face-to-face through the "bars" of a jail cell, I'll scream. I think we can retire that trope to the same closet as bullet time and the crashing helicopter that chops everything in its path like a lawnmower.
I had no issues whatsoever with the elements that they've hit from the original series. To me, one of the key things is establishing commonalities and differences early so that people can stop looking for them and start focusing on the fun.
Also, any time a little alien member of Star Fleet can have an extended video bomb scene riding a photon torpedo like Slim Pickens in Dr Strangelove, it's a win.
Finally, they referenced the Gorn. All things are better with Gorn.