It seems intentionally ironic to mention 'fanwank' (a word I find distasteful anyway, hence my use of quotation marks) in regards to ST09
while comparing it to ENT
S4. I'm sort of scratching my head to come up with any 'fanwank' moments in the last movie. On the contrary, the movie is most often criticized for its lack of concern with the fans -which is why for example Gayla is "that green chick that 'everyone' knows Kirk sleeps with" rather than an 'Orion slave girl'.
I'm also not following why 'the' important question of the day suddenly is how the movie will compare to these particular five episodes. Out of more than 600 hrs of ST, why these eps? Do they represent the pinnacle of ST for any reason? I for one have seen these episodes, and all eps in between, which now puts me about 3/4 the way through S4. I already don't remember the 'Ruffles have Ridges' scene 'vividly' enough to concur whether it was intended as a joke or not (I would kind of hope for their sake it wasn't, because I read it mostly as a continuity geek-out moment), however I think I can safely say I don't consider ENT
S4 itself to represent the strongest season of ST. To say the next film will be compared to these eps seems unlikely, since only a very small fraction of the intended audience will have seen them (until last summer I hadn't). To say it will be compared to STII
seems a more tangible concern.
Originally Posted by kevin
But then I disagree that the last film was a blunt copy of TWOK. Nemesis was, no argument and it failed because it exactly almost copied TWOK. But to some degree ALL the films have tried to replicate TWOK's successful balancing act of elements. The results have always varied. The last film on the other hand had a much different primary story. Nero was simply a catalyst for the formation story. There are aspects of TWOK in Spock/Nero's relationship but it's not the main drive of the film. He was not the best villain, to be sure though.
I think Khan being in the next movie is still less than official anyway. It seemed 'official' two weeks ago, but I think there's been some more backpedaling since. Even accepting that Schinzon and Nero are 'Khan' (let's not forget Ru'afo while we're at it), Khan himself is not 'Khan'. We already know what turns Khan into 'Khan', and that's 15 years in a desert with no toilet paper. And until seven years ago, Khan wasn't an 'Augment' either (he was doing just fine as a 'genetic superman'; retro-continuity being such a wonderful thing).
Originally Posted by horatio
For my taste Abrams is too blunt. Of course I want to be emotionally manipulated but not in such a transparent way. I guess this happens when you copy another moviemaker. Once again we see the important difference between being inspired and being a copycat.
Well, you did say 'blunt'. I'm not sure in this case if the moviemaker he's supposed to be 'copycatting' is Spielberg or Meyer. However I am genuinely curious to come across insightful criticism
towards JJ that doesn't upon closer inspection
turn out to appear influenced or motivated from the standpoint of frustrated ST fandom.