I think there are some points there that are fair.
The nuts and bolts aspect of the plot are indeed open to questions about the relative sense of the plans of those involved. That's a nuts and bolts plotting issue and yes, I absolutely believe in this respect it's no dumber than the nuts and bolts of other Star Trek episodes and films (First Contact may be a great movie to experience but do not ask me to buy that there's any real sense in why the Borg go back in time - at least, why not just go back in time to 'Best of Both Worlds' and NOT kidnap Picard. That was their only real mistake the first time around) or TWOK or parts of even TUC.
Water tight plots and entirely logical decisions are not a Star Trek hallmark. If some people wanna believe otherwise fine, but I'm not. Not even a little bit.
You're real concern is over the thematic and environmental ambience of Abrams Trek. Not the plotting. It couldn't be because too many plots are dumb as a box of hay. But that's where fans differ. You think the underlying conditions are 'worse'. I don't. Not based on my experience of Star Trek and reconciling with Abrams. However that argument has been done to death over time so I don't quite know why you still seem surprised other people don't come to your conclusions.
Now, I'm not one to argue with a director of Kurosawa's talents but there is actually more to a good movie than just being able to easily follow it. By such logic, Insurrection would be a better movie than it actually is. Making it too complicated harms a film, but making it too simple can do the same.
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'
courtesy of Saquist
Last edited by kevin : 06-03-2013 at 06:02 AM.
Reason: I think my laptop is not working with this site anymore.