pehawk wrote:We weren't subjected to the insertion of corny political correctness "see, we can get along" references using Worf as the contrast.
You know what's funny? Almost every critic of pre-Abrams Trek I've ever known has eventually gone here. "Ugh, that pretentious TNG, so pretentious and bland." It's all anyone seems to remember. It's an interesting commentary on how far our tastes have come in twenty years, given that TNG used to be one of the biggest shows on television and that there were, in fact, a lot of people who liked TNG for exactly what it was. Just because you weren't one of them, doesn't invalidate how they enjoyed the show. And I think it's understandable that those people feel a bit of a loss when the franchise is reduced to pure blaring action. (If you want better Trek, watch DS9 if you haven't already. Much smarter writing.)
Me? As a diehard Christian, I'm not one for the pure humanism side. I'm actually with you there. That warm, happy universe that Trek portrays will never happen, and it's arrogance to think otherwise. But at least these shows tried to be about something. TNG had a lot of great episodes that managed to explore the human condition without being preachy. They tried to think. Yeah, X, IX, V, they all sucked, but they tried to say something. Identity and destiny in "Nemesis", conscience and integrity in "Insurrection", the search for God in "V"...big ideas, if perhaps badly executed.
What was AbramsTrek about? Some vague hint at daddy issues? Gee, never seen THAT before. From Abrams. In every series he's created.
Abrams made the characters three dimensional, which, ya know, adds depth. You finally knew why Kirk was reckless. Spock's kind of a dick and a messed up dude. Etc, etc, etc. The threat his villian posed seemed more realistic and alot less houkey.
This movie wasn't Scorcese. Kirk was an idiot who could have gotten the Enterprise destroyed without Spock's help at the end. Spock saw his mommy die, waaahhh, that's original. The villain was boring and almost every movie critic I've read has agreed to at least that much. This wasn't depth, it was archetypes. Exactly why I think Abrams is better suited for Star Wars and why Trek is better suited for TV.
And...how exactly did a CADET who just got caught cheating on the Academy's most prestigious command exam, get promoted to first officer of the Federation flagship? Eyeroll. One of the many moments where the movie jumped the shark and landed in "dumb action movie" territory.
You're the baseball writer who didn't vote Ripken into Cooperstown the first time, because "no one's ever got 100% of the vote". Or, that annoying movie critic who gave No Country a thumbs down, just to stand out.
Funny...you wanna know who DID stand out and give Trek a thumbs down? Roger Ebert. At least someone recognized that there was little point to this film.