XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science
From: seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com
On 1/24/14 5:39 PM, Greg Goss wrote:
> "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.
Indeed. Star Trek would never have bizarre creatures on it like
one-celled organisms the size of a planet that eat life energy, or
illusion-casting salt vampires, or energy beings that live off hate, or ...
> The
> complete incomprehension of interstellar distances bugged me.
Given that the original Trek, and its follow-ons, had no clear
comprehension of interstellar, or even interplanetary, distances, I
didn't have any expectations that they'd do it in this one.
> Interstellar transporter technology was just wrong.
How so? Other than you just not liking it, of course.
> The 2009 movie
> belonged on a Saturday Morning cartoon.
>
Like, say, Star Trek: The Animated Series?
ARE there Saturday Morning Cartoons any more?
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
