XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: jclarkeusenet@cox.net   
      
   In article , gossg@gossg.org says...   
   >   
   > "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"  wrote:   
   > >On 1/24/14 2:30 PM, Greg Goss wrote:   
   >   
   > >> There were many things that annoyed me about 2009, including the stuff   
   > >> that DT mentions.  As required by the "even numbers" rule, Into   
   > >> Darkness was much better.   
   > >>   
   > >   
   > >	I would agree that Into Darkness was overall much better, but that was   
   > >partly because they had got the setup out of the way in the first movie.   
   > >All origin story movies have parts that will kinda drag. I wrote up my   
   > >own fairly detailed review of it a little while back.   
   >   
   > Using Scotty as a comedy sidekick was just wrong.  The ice creature   
   > was something that belonged in a Star Wars flick, not Star Trek.  The   
   > complete incomprehension of interstellar distances bugged me.   
   > Interstellar transporter technology was just wrong.  The 2009 movie   
   > belonged on a Saturday Morning cartoon.   
      
   The first one was bad enough that I had no desire to see the second, and   
   the ads with starship-as-submarine were a further disincentive.  Abrams   
   makes fairly decent television as long as you don't expect story arcs   
   that make any sense, but his movies kind of suck.  I doubt that I'll be   
   seeing the Star Wars sequels.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)