[Locke]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComicGuy89

Hmm that is a good point, a lot of Kirk's experience is implied because they don't have a TV show to build off. It's a minor problem with series that are restricted to movies, where character development is given only mere 2-4 hours rather than the 20-60+ a TV series gives. It's a shame that every Trek captain has had a series to build off except New Kirk.

I still don't agree with you but I believe it's due to the priorities we place and how we see things. I saw evidence of Kirk's genius in the 2009 movie and his great command then. I assumed his continued adventures on the Enterprise before Into Darkness were equally well-commanded. I'm willing to accept the movie telling me that Kirk is a great captain by implying it, but I can see now how someone might look at it different. STILL disagree, but well, to each his own.

It also doesn't help that Into Darkness is basically 99% action, there are basically no character arcs, except retreads from the first film and most of the most interesting aspects characterwise happen off screen. They could have pulled it off in two movies, maybe. but it seems Abrams was unwilling to be anyone other than Michael Bay and it's a shame.

I never thought I'd get bored of action this good but I did when action scenes were used to bridge the next action scene. How am I supposed to be convinced by all the melodrama in the third act or even care about Harrison's twist when there is about fifteen minutes worth of character stuff in a near two and a half hour long movie?

2009 was better for Kirk, it was better for the whole cast, because not every scene was an action scene, there were actual character moments and character arcs.