Star Trek is notable for screwing up ac neilsen ratings**, then being screwed by the tv industry who cannot see what the point of it is, and some sub par acting in the latter series. If its on i’d watch [original] kirk, picard (both my blog), and brooks in ds9 do there thing.
Having been around the block and moved from tv to cinema this time with Abrams at the helm for a second go i pondered where the originality went.Its another remake and with his other trek film being the dreaded starflreet academy* i have to wonder does he have free will.
Fortunately i did not have to endure it in 3d (totally unnecessary) but it is another minus mark against the great and powerful Abrams who appears spineless.
A universe is a large thing, so surely there’s no lack of orginaltity to be found, well the spineless fool at the helm sets the thing on earth. See space ships are boring. Then he is back to rehashing the 5 year mission.
I will grant one compliment and that is the set design does not does not look too bad, but then again if somebody from 2067 saw st:tng they too might consider it dated. That’s a compliment with a criticism.
The less i mention the lens flare the better, and while the existing tv trek has merit cant anybody risk them doing anything new ? No seems to be the reply.
* read any biography of a trek actor (my blog). ** doctors and engineers apparently dont watch tv and so should be ignored by marketing people as they do math or something *** that cinemas are finally offering both 2d as well but at a cost of horrid scheduling
You might not agree with that assessment, but how many books do you read again and again. Not all of his work is perfect and short stories do develop into books but in a age where the future with spaceships has not happened pkd’s subversive take on life and say philosophy [story not by its cover] books means while it might be unique and while its no predictor of now back then a rather fun way to bend perceptions is accomplished.



