Originally Posted by martok2112
Ummm....sorry, but in watching shows like Fringe, Abrams and Co. write much better than just "dumb action flicks", and despite my mild objections to some revisiting of some territory in the first viewing of STID (which I enjoyed even more the second time around), STID is not a "dumb action flick".
Sorry, but just throwing good and familiar ingredients into your meal without doing any actual cooking work does not lead to a good meal.
After having learned the rough plot I asked two very basic and intuitive questions
about whether Marcus is crazy and the cold war tensions with the Klingons and Romulans are not perceived anymore, as in all previous Trek, as three-player game and why the history books are destroyed and only OldSpock knows that Khan was a power-hungry tyrant. Nothing fancy, it is just the stuff than immediately came to mind. And as I expected the guys who have seen the movie indicated that the writers did not think at all about this very basic stuff.
This suffices to call their writing dumb. Given that O&K also wrote the scripts of two Michael Bay movies this is hardly surprising.
And lest I get accused of want Trek to be particularly intelligent , TMP is a sleeping pill. A good Trek movie has something of everything: some action, some humour, some smart ideas and so on.
TWOK, TUC and FC had all of this. Average Trek movies lack something, e.g. TVH lacks action (there, I said it, the movie lacks sh*t blowing up). Bad Trek movies just feature one ingredient, e.g. TFF had only humour, TMP was just based on an idea and the last three movies focused too much on action.
It is hardly a coincidence that Shinzon, Nero and Marcus have one thing in common, absent or hard-to-construct motivations. Of course I am not advocating that characters should be crystal clear and transparent. This is not realistic, we do very often not know what we really want.
But when you gotta pull stuff like "Shinzon wants to destroy Earth and not the planet of his former oppressors because Picard reminds him of how his life could have been so it is basically about envy" or "Nero, not a solider but a working man, does not blame his own government for not having prevented a natural catastrophe but actually wants the kill the guy who actually tried to help and then also blow up Earth ... because he is stupid and believes Romulan propaganda about the evil Federation or whatever" out of your a*s to make sense of why these villains go ape-sh*t it is safe to say that the writing was lazy. Of course you can also claim that the villains are just meant to be psychopaths but this is even worse, converting Trek into a reactionary franchise in which the good guys blow up the psychopathic, evil-by-nature bad guys. Last time I checked Balance of Terror or Errand of Mercy did portray the enemies to be fairly rational (and lest somebody accuses me of being a hippie peacenik, you do not dehumanize your enemy not for his sake but for your sake and you try to understand your enemy in order to be able to fight him better).