Yo, I feel like someone already explained this to you on your last post hawk. bout how you complained about star trek being an action movie and abrams not being called out on that...I mean, how is this new post any different?hawk of endymion wrote:Re-watched the trailer the other day, saw that finally installed a brig on the Enterprise (where was that in the first movie?)
It amaze me that some directors are crapped on their cliches, but Abrams is celebrated (so done with the dumb homages to fans, look out Star Wars). I think this movie should be renamed: Star Trek: The Wrath of NOT Khan.
when in the first movie did they need a brig though? Kirk was thrown off the ship the moment he disobeyed orders and bucked the chain of command.
I always thought that the reason Abrams isn't 'crapped' on for his use of "cliches" is because he uses the right amount of homage to the original series to keep most of the trekky's happy while applying new things to keep newer audiences interested. In other words, it isn't whorish and I would call Abrams a genius for doing such fantastic work in balancing the 2 elements.
It is similar to Peter Jackson in the LOTR's movies, there are people, mostly purest of the book series, that hated the films. But more casual fans and just mainstream audiences loved them. And it made SHIT storms of money.
oh, what 'cliches' are you talking about actually? I mean, yo, how can we discuss this when you gave us nothing to discuss?
Are you disappointed that star trek into darkness doesn't have khan in it? If you do, let me ask you. what do you want from star trek anyway? you seem upset that abrams uses 'cliches (?),' yet you don't seem happy that abrams is being original and creating a new bad for the crew to fight? consider me confused man. i don't understand what you don't like? i mean, you can't have the Best of Both Worlds... (boom reference!)