Quote:
Originally Posted by blonde_devil
I am not going to sit in this thread and argue if the movie is good or not because this is not the place but if you want to argue that the movie is good, back it up. I can when I say the movie is bad.
|
The movie may have had plot holes but it wasn't the only one. WRATH OF KHAN had Chekov recognizing Khan and the Reliant not figuring out why Ceti Alpha VI was not in its orbit (plus if you count planets it would still be Ceti Alpha V), just to name a couple.
In Trek '09 I found out more about Kirk and Spock's backstory in half an hour than I did in 40 years worth of TOS and the original crew films.
Trek '09 finally had a budget that the filmmakers were able to tell the type of story they wanted where they wanted and not be limited by that.
Trek '09 had great performances by all the actors involved.
Trek '09 had a director that cared how the film looked.
At 2+ hours it still felt short. No discussions of tachyon fields and polarity reversals either. Something either worked or it didn't, the technobabble was kept at minimum.
The story was good and did what it needed to do: introduce the characters and get them all together by the end into the format of the original series.
The reasons you give for it being a "bad" film seem petty, nitpicking, and behind the times. This film breathed new life into a dead franchise.