Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "Star Trek: Into Darkness is a Terrible Movie" video.

@DelDuio : The bug that went in your ear and controlled you creeped me out so bad! And they gave you insight into why Khan was Khan, and you could see he wasn't entirely a bad guy. There was nuance. But this was back when they didn't have to make SURE that you KNEW one or more characters was gay or dark-skinned or both.
15
@DragNetJoe Yup. Even fantasy needs a rule set for story telling.
3
i think the cinematography was shit, as well. "We'll just use shaky cam and really harsh glare to obscure any details we're too lazy to include."
2
The original Star Trek reboot (was that "Into Darkness?") was unable to show real action, so a lot of quick cuts and shaky cam. They a bazillion dollar budget, but shot all the action like cheap animé, where loud music and bright lights substitute for actual action. And what was with all the scenes being glared out? Very little useful information. Camera tricks to hide the nothing that was going on? Just "suggest" something's going on? They did a better job with stop-motion on Raiders of the Lost Arc than they're doing with movies with HUGE budgets and CGI. I feel this way about 90% of action films, today. None of the action seems real, and they have the means to actually do sci-fi and fantasy real justice. But they did a better job in Creature from the Black Lagoon, which was just a guy in a rubber suit.
1
Do they just not do their research, or do they write this way on purpose?
1