![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Well, less than half a movie night. We only watched a small portion before "tired" won.
I liked the first J.J. Abrams Star Trek. It was a decent story for relaunching a franchise that was pretty much played out. A new time line means an unexplored future. So many of the old story lines can be reused with new twists and turns. So, I was expecting this movie to be about the same action-packed, thrill a minute ride through the Star Trek universe.
Not so much so far. Why? Well the Kirk character is just not believable. In the Foundation Series, we have a character who has been carefully bred such that based on very limited information, he always comes up with the right answer. The character is explained well and is reasonably easy to accept because of the explanation.
The new and improved Kirk character is always right but unbelievable. Really unbelievable. Clownish. It was hard to spot in the first one because the movie really moved so there wasn't much time to think about his dare-devil view of the world. It was explained, but that being a dare-devil does not correctness make.
In this movie, so far, we get to spend a lot of time with nothing else to do but think about idiot Kirk. In fact, two other characters spend a lot of time letting us know that he is idiot Kirk. Kirk will win in the end (duh). He will have been proved correct in spite of the zig-zag course he lays in for the movie.
The other problem I'm having is with Spock. His character is a nag, so far. A bitchy, hide-bound, dick weed. This is not who he was in the first movie. I think the intention is to show us the building friendship between Spock and Kirk. But couldn't we pick that up where the first movie left off? Guess not.
The main plot is, so far, pedestrian. The subplots are still a bit opaque. Might turn out well. I'm hoping so.
No rating yet. But it better get better cause I'd really hate to give any Star Trek movie a 2 out of five. Even the even number ones from the first series of movies weren't a mere 2, although a couple of them were close to that.
I liked the first J.J. Abrams Star Trek. It was a decent story for relaunching a franchise that was pretty much played out. A new time line means an unexplored future. So many of the old story lines can be reused with new twists and turns. So, I was expecting this movie to be about the same action-packed, thrill a minute ride through the Star Trek universe.
Not so much so far. Why? Well the Kirk character is just not believable. In the Foundation Series, we have a character who has been carefully bred such that based on very limited information, he always comes up with the right answer. The character is explained well and is reasonably easy to accept because of the explanation.
The new and improved Kirk character is always right but unbelievable. Really unbelievable. Clownish. It was hard to spot in the first one because the movie really moved so there wasn't much time to think about his dare-devil view of the world. It was explained, but that being a dare-devil does not correctness make.
In this movie, so far, we get to spend a lot of time with nothing else to do but think about idiot Kirk. In fact, two other characters spend a lot of time letting us know that he is idiot Kirk. Kirk will win in the end (duh). He will have been proved correct in spite of the zig-zag course he lays in for the movie.
The other problem I'm having is with Spock. His character is a nag, so far. A bitchy, hide-bound, dick weed. This is not who he was in the first movie. I think the intention is to show us the building friendship between Spock and Kirk. But couldn't we pick that up where the first movie left off? Guess not.
The main plot is, so far, pedestrian. The subplots are still a bit opaque. Might turn out well. I'm hoping so.
No rating yet. But it better get better cause I'd really hate to give any Star Trek movie a 2 out of five. Even the even number ones from the first series of movies weren't a mere 2, although a couple of them were close to that.
Tags: