Me rambling about movies and whatever else I feel like
I liked how Khan's character was realistic as a person: while he was without doubt the antagonist, he was not "all bad," as he showed feelings for his own race. It's difficult to make villains who are evil but not shallow: Khan had his own moral values, however warped.Also, I agree that the ending was too cheerful and formulaic (the latter referring to its parallels to the 2009 film). What I liked about The Dark Knight was that it left room for a third film without "leaning" on one. I remember Christopher Nolan saying in an interview that he had no intention of offering "sequel bait." TDK had its own arc and conclusion without ending with a total cliffhanger. Cliffhangers are fine with me as long as they are not used for every installment, and as long as the continuation (or conclusion) comes within a reasonable amount of time: not so long that people give up, but not so fast that, as in the Twilight films, there is hardly any anticipation time. But with the case of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1, I thought the timing was perfect.
Yeah I agree. And actually now that I think about it, I was a little too lenient when I gave this film four out of five stars. It falls more into the 2 1/2-3 range. I had fun with it, but the script has so many flaws. Unlike the 2009 film, this one really doesn't have a whole lot of character/story basis, and instead goes way overboard with flashy action sequences. I guess Cumberbatch kinda distracted me from the mistakes of this sequel when I watched it. Nevertheless, the writers did have a lot to live up to, between Wrath of Khan and the first Abrams installment.
Yeah. At least Abrams is not Michael Bay, eh? I myself often change my ratings over time. But Cumberbatch's voice is just so amazing, not to mention his acting in general.Where might I find the script? I haven't read it. (Reposted this comment because I meant it as a reply.)
Abrams is definitely one of my favorite modern filmmakers. I love Super 8 and the first Star Trek. This one just happened to be an unremarkable addition to his work. The script might have leaked online. Not sure though. If you wanna read a good Abrams script though, check out his Superman. He was originally supposed to reboot the franchise, but Warner Bros. rejected his script. I myself found it to be a really nice take on the character. Just Google it and you'll be able to find a PDF version.
A bit late in the game for me to be replying here, so hopefully you see this comment.As someone who has (tragically) not been well-versed in Trek culture, it came as a surprise to me that the original Khan was portrayed as South Asian, and while I love Mr. Cumberbatch, I have heard complaints of racism in casting a white man, and more about the "Turn around!" scene (which was unnecessary). The race thing was brought to my attention by a friend of mine (whom you may or may not have met at the NCSU writer's camp a couple years back).http://www.racebending.com/v4/featured/star-trek-whiteness/ (Not to say I do not enjoy Abrams' work, though.)Thoughts?
I have heard that discussed, but I'm not that opposed to Abrams' choice here. It's those kind of things that make reboots what they are. You can't just replicate the original.
Well, it is true that if you did replicate the original exactly (plus CGI), there would be no point, really, as everything would basically be the same and it would be more practical to simply screen the original. Honestly I'm not sure what to think.Have you seen the BBC program SHERLOCK by any chance? Cumberbatch is in that.
Heck yeah. Sherlock is awesome. It's the only modern SH adaptation that I thoroughly enjoy and respect.
This comment has been removed by the author.