Star Trek
Hmmmmm? Okay I admit I have wanted to see this for a long time. Some random comments.
It is visually stunning. I really liked the look of the movie.
Acting was okay.
Story line was captivating - but . . I felt like it was somewhat weak in the explanation of how all the time confusion happens. It didn't need to be technical, just more precise on why and how long. It was hard to follow that part of it.
Oh, but yes, I did like this movie.
Now - a question of philosophy. I have heard comments to the effect of - this movie changes the time line for all of the other Star Trek sagas. So here is the question - did it really - or did this movie change the time line to start the other Star Trek sagas as they really are - and they would have been something different if this movie hadn't have been. So the Captain Kirk that we know from the 70s, is really the Captain Kirk at the end of this movie (only now he has a much cooler Enterprise). If this movie wasn't, then Captain Kirk may not have ever been in Star Fleet due to the history we saw - or at least he wouldn't have been psychologically driven by his father's death to get command in "3 years".
Oh, we will never know. Or will we. Can you support the premise that this is a "new" time line. Or can you support the premise that this starts the "original" time line. (By the way - I have proof of one of those premises.)
Let me give this movie a 3.5+. Yes, I am a hard audience.
2 comments:
Is Vulcan destroyed in the original Star Trek's? I'm not that big of a Trekky, so I don't know. But if the planet existed in the originals, then you can conclude this is a new timeline without a planet Vulcan.
Mat
Of course - yoiu would see the obvious. I saw the more sublime - such as - in the original, Lt. Ohurah had a "thing" with Captain Kirk. Obviously that "thing" has switched to Spoke in the new time line. Oh, well - Mat sees destruction - I see kissing in the elevator.
Post a Comment