XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: dtravel@sonic.net   
      
   On 1/24/2014 2:47 PM, J. Clarke wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
   Excuse me, James Nicoll?  May I borrow one of your cats to stroke?  :D   
      
   --   
   The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,   
   hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with   
   methamphetamine, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate   
   wouldn't tolerate.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)