I personally loved JJ Trek because I wasn't a big original Trek fan and loved that he made it more like Star Wars. So I can definitely feel for those who are huge original Trek fans and do understand that side of the negativity. But that's why the JJ Trek films worked for ME personally.
Yeah. I grew up with both. My take has been: When I'm in the mood for Trek, I'll watch Trek; and when I'm in the mood for Wars, I'll watch Wars. One is taut character drama, socio-political self-examination (with appropriate amounts of humor and action and romance mixed in, kinda like life)... and the other is High Concept operatic myth. They're each best when they remember that.
I was a huge star trek fan and loved the first JJ film, darkness wasn't that bad, but they should never have made it about Khan.
I loved
moments in both. They're well-cast, well-acted, and there's a decent amount of good dialogue and visually stunning shots... But they both break down under the slightest examination. From the general to the specific -- characters having aborted arcs, or no motivation, or behaving in ways they shouldn't... Truly bad science in both, when Trek always strove to get it right (even allowing for conceits like subspace, FTL drive, transporters, and whatnot)... Things that make someone who knows the content of the Trek universe twitch, like this new
Enterprise -- which masses about what the
Enterprise-D in Next Generation did -- with its massive, massive warp engines... being built on the ground rather than in space. Never mind that every previous iteration of Trek had ship construction mostly or entirely in space. Building hat thing on the ground is putting unnecessary strain on the structural members and all that mass is going to have to boost out of Earth's gravity (putting
more strain on the structural members), which is far more intensive than just building it in space... like they did the
Vengeance.
The whole climax of Into Darkness fell flat. Either 1) the audience member(s) have seen TWOK and see what's going on with the reversed Kirk/Spock sacrifice to save the ship thing and are chuckling all throughout, or 2) the audience member(s) have
not seen TWOK, but know nothing bad is going to happen to the captain, so they're not worried. Either way, the entire sequence doesn't have the emotional impact it's obviously supposed to. Spock yelling "
KHAAAAAAAAN!!!" was just... yeah... :facepalm
And I had really,
really wanted Benedict Cumberbatch to be playing Gary Mitchell, and Alice Eve to be playing Elizabeth Dehner. Benedict would have been lovely to have go from normal and Kirk's friend to scenery-chewing godling trying to kill his now-former friend. *shrug* Oh, well. Opportunity lost.
There are plenty people who love the new trek and loved trek before the new movies, my husband and father-in-law included. And my father in law grew up watching the original series when it was first airing.
*nod* Everyone I know who grew up with TOS, or was part of the original viewing audience in the '60s (like my folks) have all commented on the same things being the reasons they liked these new ones -- the characters -- especially Spock and McCoy, with Chekov getting an honorable mention -- were quite close to the originals, and poked them hard in the nostalgia nerve, an effect amplified by fifty thousand "Look! We're Star Trek! See?!" elements liberally sprinkled throughought, from computer and equipment sound effects, to McCoy's "I'm a doctor, not a _______" cracks, to Spock's eyebrow lift, and so on. On second viewing, my mom started to notice the things that were off. Now she's hoping the next time they try rebooting Trek they "get it right". But, like me, she'd be happy watching two hours of Quinto's Spock and Urban's McCoy verbally sparring.
Ironically, a lot of this, inside-out, sums up my issues with the Prequels -- the people making the films not getting what made the original films click and, despite having good actors, great visuals, and a smattering of good character and dialogue moments... just didn't fit.
--Jonah
