So I watched Star Trek Into Darkness (spoiler discussion)

[kj]

N-OS X-tasy! wrote:
Real question: After nearly 50 years, wouldn't one expect ST to evolve? It's not 1968 anymore, or even 1982.

I relate most things to cars, so sorry in advance, but there are lots of examples of cars that maintain a sense of history, philosophy, general "feel". I think of bmw, lotus, maybe jaguar as good examples. Their new cars are cutting edge, but true to their history and philosophy (lotus: lightweight, bmw: refinement, driver's car, connection to road, etc.). So I think they could have updated Star Trek while making it true to the history, but they didn't, probably cuz it's hard. kj.

[RAMd®d]

And they are bringing some fresh blood into the franchise.

But they are bringing fresh blood into a stale franchise.

Not all the original Star Trek movies were winners, but even the worst were more interesting to me than these New and Improved versions. And the latter don't even come close to the best of the former.

The franchise has turned into a summer block buster so much so that it hardly qualifies as science fiction.

While some of the acting is really good, it's just not enough for me.

And when it comes to movies, I'm as easy as 1-2-3.

[Rolando]

I just reWatched it this week. Its a fun flick, but It is not Star Trek. I take it for what it is!