watched the new star trek last night

[Acer]

[pRICE cUBE]

Acer wrote:

POMTL

[PeterB]

I'm probably in the minority here, but I really hated this movie.

The lens flares = no substitute for decent acting, scripting, and direction.

[Will Collier]

It's entertaining. The script is a piece of crap in terms of plot and the "science" is on a par with a bad cartoon, but the acting is good and characterizations are very well done.

[NewtonMP2100]

.....the young hard bodies.....help.....

[Winston]

When I saw it in an AMC theater they dropped 15 minutes in the middle and didn't tell anyone.

I only found out because my son who was with me had seen it before. Never got an adequate answer from AMC, so now I avoid their theaters.


- Winston

[mrlynn]

wowzer wrote:
It's worth watching. Some Star Trek is better than no Star Trek. The trouble is that it's an alternate reality Star Trek.

Ditto. The 'prequel' idea was fun, but creating an alternate reality in which the entire Vulcan home world is destroyed was just stupid. Then it can never tie in with the original Star Trek, and the subsequent series as well. Cognitive dissonance!

Then, I never liked the time-travel plots in ST, either.

/Mr Lynn

[bazookaman]

mrlynn wrote:
it can never tie in with the original Star Trek, and the subsequent series as well.

why does that matter?

[mrlynn]

bazookaman wrote:
[quote=mrlynn]
it can never tie in with the original Star Trek, and the subsequent series as well.

why does that matter?
To maintain the integrity of the (fictional) universe, required for suspension of disbelief.

Or some such foolishness.

/Mr Lynn

[Winston]

Where I come from some people got dis belief, some people got dat belief. Suspension depends on how many potholes you've hit.
:-)



- W