this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2025
111 points (99.1% liked)
movies
2420 readers
189 users here now
A community about movies and cinema.
Related communities:
- !television@piefed.social
- !homevideo@feddit.uk
- !mediareviews@lemmy.world
- !casualconversation@piefed.social
Rules
- Be civil
- No discrimination or prejudice of any kind
- Do not spam
- Stay on topic
- These rules will evolve as this community grows
No posts or comments will be removed without an explanation from mods.
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don’t mean this in a combative way (haven’t even seen much of Star Trek!) but I’m really interested in what you mean by this line:
It stuck out to me because I can’t quite grasp if you mean films in general were of lower quality in 2009, scripts were less advanced or dense, or if it is a specific reference to how Star Trek scripts were more acceptable since?
Again, not meant in an argumentative way necessarily (although perhaps a little if it’s the second assumption, as I would probably disagree 🙂) - rather I am confused by seeing it expressed like this.
Meaning "Star Trek (2009)", which was the first of the Kelvin Timeline. That is the one film of that timeline which tends to get the most love, and I think it also had the best script of any in the timeline.
Gotcha, that makes sense!