I'm not saying they should have moped, but I think that if your story calls for something as radical as destroying an entire planet and most of a major race, it should be dealt with more centrally. But this was an action movie, so giving characters time to respond realistically to their environments isn't part of the formula. Why bother with including such a loss if you don't plan on using it to greater effect? I suppose if they make a sequel they could deal with the ramifications then, but there is no reason to think a sequel to this Star Trek won't follow the normal formula for action movie sequels, which is basically bigger effects, bigger villains, weaker story and character development and consequently more plot holes. From my point of view, the only way they can salvage their credibility with Star Trek fans (as opposed to action scifi fans) would be to make a tv series or something similar before the next movie, so they can deal with the characters before thrusting them into another big flashy adventure. That's probably not what they'll do, though since it probably won't make them the most green. In the end, I agree that it's an above average action sci-fi movie, I just wish they hadn't made it (nominally) about Star Trek characters. The movie would have been essentially the same if you changed all the character and place names. I guess my opinion is that it's a pretty good movie, but pretty bad Star Trek.
In the end, I agree that it's an above average action sci-fi movie, I just wish they hadn't made it (nominally) about Star Trek characters. The movie would have been essentially the same if you changed all the character and place names. I guess my opinion is that it's a pretty good movie, but pretty bad Star Trek.
Reply
Leave a comment