Hmm...just saw Star Trek and am not quite suresies how my frontal lobe feals about it. One one hand the acting was pretty darn phenom. Chris Pine is the ultimate pretty boy, and my main reason for not sprinting to the cinema the moment it opened, (I don't trust unhuman good looks) but he was really quite brilliant. I looked him up afterwards and discovered that he has a degree, which makes him okay in my book. Unfortunately there aren't many women, which is where my problems with it begin, but in my tradition of lists in this blog thus far here is a list of other grievances I had with the film:
1. Spoiler Alert for all you pretend Trekki's who are obviously not real trekki's because you still haven't seen the film. Time Travel is SUCH A COP OUT. plus the way it is dealt with in this film is not my personal timr travel taste. There are two options for time travel in film/literature etc: a) when a character travels back in time they exist in a parallel universe that will effect the outcome of their 'other self' but will not change their life in the future. and b) when a character travels back in time it does not effect their future life because the time travel happened in the past, therefore it already happened in the future life and they are only carrying out events as they will inevitably unfold. Guh, brain hurts. This is hard to describe. Plus there are some very rowdy teenagers outside my window and two loud dogs barking which is disrupting my thought flow.
Anyway, if you can somehow follow what i have just illiterately garbled Star Trek deals with the first method of timr travel and thus the film takes place in a totally alternate universe meaning that none of the characters will grow up to have the same adventures as the cast of the tv show. This is the most cronicles of ridic thing i have ever seen. But of course was only done so that they can produce many sequels without having to worry about keeping in line with the series.
I am just taking a quick break to apply teeth whitening gel...hold on.
righty tighty.
2. I simply don't see the point in watching a Star Trek film in which the characters are not, in actual fact, the people in the series.
3.The original Star Trek was a moral and social commentary. This is decidedly not. In fact at one point Spok expresses a wish not to show mercy in the name of diplomacy, and instead let the bad guy die! Totally out of character. Would never happen. sorry but you know I'm right.
4. The female characters, oops i mean character; there's only one, (not counting Winona ryder but I will get to that in a minute) is megolithically attractive but bland as porridge.
5. Winona Ryder plays a sixty year old woman. Which seems unfair to actual sixty year olds, who i bet would love to get cast now and again.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"The original Star Trek was a moral and social commentary. This is decidedly not."
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly how I felt. The original Trek featured the first interracial kiss in the HISTORY of TV. Not to mention propelled Tribble-acceptance into the national psyche.
This one featured a bunch of explosions. Sad.