On May 11, 2009, at 9:48 PM, Bhairitu wrote: > "meh!" > > I guess I was expecting too much. Some clever something from wizard > J.J. Abrams and company. Not a chance. This was basically a homage > to > the TV series and a dad to mom and the kids: "let's go see the new > Star > Trek movie!" If you were looking for some edge like we get with > "Lost", > "Fringe" or "Cloverfield" then forget it. Trekkies will probably > love > it but I would suspect some of them might have been expecting much > more > too. A bunch of TV actors doing a TV movie in scope (still formatted > for crop-o-vision). Syler shift-shaped into Spock. "JAG" (which I > probably have watched all of 10 minutes of) on the bridge. I'm sure > that Paramount will have some new rides at "Great America" out of > this, > that is if anyone can afford to go there anymore.
For a Trek fan like myself, I thought it was overall excellent--really the best Star Trek movie so far. But it did suffer from a common issue of many sci-fi mega films and that's thrilling special effects with constant action at the expense of a more broad-ranging plot. It doesn't seem necessary to be 'balls to the wall' from beginning to end. In similar films I found myself wondering if they were gearing such movies to kids who's nervous systems were accustomed to sitting in front of an Xbox 360 for most of their lives. I really dug the new transporter effect which looked like it started at the level of the aura/vyana-vayu. Way cool. They should've included the chakras.
