There's been a lot of hype surrounding the new Star Trek movie, and for good reason. First, J.J. Abrams, the mind behind the smash TV show Lost directed this blockbuster. And, hey, it's a Star Trek movie, it has a large cult following to begin with.
I'm not a "Trekkie," and I'm kind of excited to see this flick. And, apparently, there are many, many people like me - which means that Abrams hit the mark with his portrayal.
One thing that bothers me - he calls it a "reimagining" of the Star Trek story. I'm not sure why, but I absolutely HATE that term. Really, it's a prequel, isn't it? Why can't it be called this? Why do directors have to use terms like reimagining and rebooting (like the Batman movies)?
Seriously, why not create your own movie with your own Sci-Fi storyline? I mean, isn't this what Star Wars was? Couldn't Star Wars have theoretically been a "reimagining" of Star Trek? Heck, all gangster movies could probably be a rebooting of The Godfather, right? Was Adam Sandler's football movie, The Longest Yard, a "reimagining" of the classic? No - it was a remake.
Reimagining or Rebooting is like screwing with the past, isn't it? Can the Bible be "rebooted?" What about history? Can the Civil War be reimagined? Wait, I think the South has already done this, right? Nevermind.
Chocolate Cherry Cha Cha Cocktail
2 days ago