| Lamont Cranston |
05.09.2009 01:52 PM |
Star Trek, last night
I'm not an obsessive fan - I've never dressed up, never gone to a convention, never been part of a fanclub, never learnt Hamlet in the original Klingon, never written a fanfic, read a couple paperbacks when I was a kid (dreck), etc.
An ordinary viewer.
I'm realistic enough to agree with people like Philip K. Dick that it by and large was old scifi pulp militarism reheated and Nicholas Meyers that whatever pretensions it claimed to aspire to it was often just gunboat diplomacy in space.
The whole thing about being about something bigger was Roddenberrys vague flailing around at an idea without any actual work being put into it.
But on occasions in the original series and Next Generation and in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 8th film they actually managed to get near or reach these high ideals of being about something more-or if not that then done some decent characterization and stories. And of course there was Deep Space 9 (back to realistic: lets not beat around the bush, someone at Paramount ripped off Babylon 5 big time).
What is this new film?
A dumbfounding 'reboot' (lol guis I accidentaly continuity-wat nao /b/?)*, a few minutes for some juvenile emotions, the rest hot air couched in enough screwing around with the sound design and frenetic editing and busy directing - shakeycam close-ups, dutch angles, whip pans, sweeping dollys, lense flare etc. - to make Michael Bay blush, and action action action.
But nothing is there.
*Starting over from scratch is one thing- J. Michael Straczynski counter-proposed that very idea when he turned down joining the writing staff on Enterprise, Battlestar Galactica would be another example. But that's not what this does. It actually has to go and destroy its (future) history. Wipe it out of existence. Thats a little odd. (ironically the only thing spared since it occured in the films past is Enterprise)
|
