http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/mohvies/star-trek-into-darkness-directed-by-j-j-abrams.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Aw
I was searching through the New York Times and found a review of the newest Star Trek movie, Into Darkness. It was pretty clear to see that the author of this article wasn't a big fan on this movie. He called the plot dumb, and was upset due to the militarization of Starfleet. I did not agree with him on this. I did watch some of the older movies and episodes of Star Trek, and their goal was just exploration. There were lots of battle scenes , but that was defense. In this new movie, Kirk is sent on a mission to fire 72 torpedoes at a criminal on a different planet. That doesn't sound like an exploration does it? But I think this was totally necessary to the story. Kirk doesn't realize it's a trap, and doesn't care it's a military operation because this guy killed his friend. Spock says this is immoral and against Starfleet regulations, but no one cares. This is why they end up talking to Khan, which gets them on the Vengeance and to admiral Marcus, where he is killed and Khan gets away. If this mission was not there, the movie would have been ruined. Also, Starfleet wasn't militarized, it was just that one assignment to the Enterprise that was.
I also think the plot was great, from the bombing of the archive (Weapons Facility), to Kirk dieing in the warp core. It was cool to see Kirk die in the warp core in Into Darkness after seeing Spock die in the warp core in Wrath of Khan, where the same enemy threatens the ship.
The author of the New York Times review thinks that Into Darkness was disappointing, but I think it was a great movie and that people should remember that this movie, along with the 2009 Star Trek, is an alternate timeline, so everything is different. And this movie fit that timeline very well.
Este comentário foi removido pelo autor.
ResponderExcluirEric, I liked your post because it told of your own opinion about the authors statement for the Star Trek Movie's plot being "dumb". I think that it was because he wasn't looking for the plot in the movie. I think that the plot is the mission that Kirk was assigned. Like you said "f this mission was not there, the movie would have been ruined."
ResponderExcluirEric, I think you could have used more formal language. You gave your opinions (which was great). I thought that at moments you were giving major spoilers for people like me, who have not seen the movie. Over all, you did great on giving your opinions and disagreeing with the writher.
ResponderExcluir