Have those who disliked the Abramsprise finally accepted design?

[ST-One]

It has no impact, because it was a "stunt." That's how I see it. In this movie, blowing up Vulcan was a pandering attempt to get cheap emotional reactions from the audience without having to EARN those emotion reactions through actual storytelling.

Yeah, just as it was just a stunt when Mr. O'Hara died from that fall off his horse in Gone with the Wind, or when the terrorist leader in Air Force One shot Melanie Mitchell, or when Kruge ordered the death of one of the hostages in TSFS and David gets killed, or ...
Yeah, just stunts. Not storytelling. Not part of the characters' motivations.
No, just 'pandering' for 'cheap emotional reactions from the audience'.

You entirely miss the point that I so clearly stated.

In ST-09, the emotional reaction of the audience is based upon familiarity with Vulcan which was not created during this movie.

In "Gone with the Wind," the audience's entire emotional connection to Mr. Ohara came out of that specific movie.

In Air Force One, the audience's emotional reaction to the death of the Melanie Mitchell character was more based upon a pretty good acting and directing job (a CGI planet can't "act" of course).

I DO tend to think that death of David was a bit of a "stunt" in ST-III, however. The emotional impact of that was unrelated to the death of the character played by Merritt Buttrick. It was, instead, driven home by Shatner's reaction scene... the death of the character himself was largely pointless and had very little the response of the audience, I think. The only reason we cared was because Shatner proved his detractors wrong... portraying, in a rather amazing way, HIS reaction. If Shatner was a total "hack" as he's often described as, the entire scene would have been pointless. (And to be honest, I really wish that they HADN'T killed off David. I mean, Spock, then David, then the Enterprise.... it's almost as if they did some "box office math" and determined that One Spock will cost One Enterprise plus change in the form of One David.)

In this movie, ST'09, on the other hand, the audience isn't given any reason to feel any connection whatsoever to this planet. In fact, a new viewer would be given reason to DISLIKE this planet, I think. I mean... a bunch of nasty kids bully one of the lead characters... and another bunch of nasty adults bully the same lead character... and then the leaders of the planet, when their planet is at risk of total destruction, go hide in a cave. Hell, most people probably thought that they deserved to die!

The only "emotional reaction" to the death of Vulcan is because many of us already knew what Vulcan was, and had some sense of connection to it from 40+ years of Star Trek.

The only "emotional reaction" to the death of Amanda was due to the fact that we, as "hardcore Star Trek fans" knew who she was. In the context of this movie, she was a virtual cypher. (The deleted scenes, by the way, don't count as being "part of the movie," though having seen them, I think it was a HUGE mistake to remove them... they would have let the audience at least recognize her as an actual person rather than a "walking prop.")

So, we're left with the same element as in ST-III... the reaction of the lead character... to bring about ANY audience emotional reaction. Unlike the stunned, dizzied, response of Shatner (leading into absolute cold, calculating, grim determination) in ST-III - which, after all, is very much like real people react when given that sort of news, isn't it? - we get a reaction that very few of us could possibly relate to, and thus few really emotionally "connect" to.

Maybe it deeply affected everyone in the theater where you saw it... including those who'd never seen a single Star Trek episode and had no idea who or what "Vulcan" was (maybe they thought Vulcan was a guy who makes rubber for tires!). I've seen no indication from anyone to that end. Yeah, there were lots of "wow, it was cool watching the planet eat itself"... but very few actual EMOTIONAL responses, among anyone in the theater where I saw it. In fact, people CLAPPED, because it was "cool."

Destroying Vulcan was a stunt, yeah. It was there for shock value, and the shock value only applies to those who already were intimately familiar with Vulcan long before this movie was ever born.

Nice to see you ramble on and on about this 'cheap stunt' but completely ignore your other big Fail. You know? The one where you tried to bash Abrams and Co for placing the phaser turrets on the Enterprise's hull but having other turrets pop up and actually fire the shots.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

Cary,

The destruction of Vulcan, if you are familiar with some of the writer's interviews, was to make that point that things were different, that they were not going to push the reset button.

When Vulcan was destroyed, I did not see anything resembling cheering at that point in the movie at any of the 10 showings I've been to.

Many Trek fans have taken non-trek fans to see the movie, and many of them loved it, wanting to know more about the Original Series.

There were sequences on Vulcan that showed Spock growing up there, his family, and introducing the concept of the Vulcans, so the audience got some sense of what was lost.

We also saw the way Kirk's father sacrificed himself to save his wife, Jim Kirk, and the crew of the Kelvin, providing an emotional link for an unfamiliar audience to care about James Kirk.

Spock's emotional reaction to his parents death, and the destruction of his home, is a loss the like of which Spock in the Prime timeline has never dealt with. The scene with Uhura was not so much about Uhura and Spock, as it was about Spock attempting to bury his feelings, and to show Spock's struggle, as well as his loss.

Amanda was introduced earlier in the movie, and it was made clear that she was his Mother. A general audience would still react to her fall, but we feel it more because we effectively knew her as a character better.

Old Spock was introduced, and his reaction to James Kirk was consistent with the Spock we last saw in "Unification", and had known since "The Cage", but still provided enough information for a general audience that this was indeed an older Spock from the future, and knew who Kirk was.

Again, this illustrates how and why my "yes" and "no" response that it works without knowing anything about Trek, but has a deeper impact to those with intimate knowledge of it's history, applies.

We'll have to agree to disagree, since neither of us is going to change how we reacted to the movie.

 

[ST-One]

Cary,

The destruction of Vulcan, if you are familiar with some of the writer's interviews, was to make that point that things were different, that they were not going to push the reset button.

When Vulcan was destroyed, I did not see anything resembling cheering at that point in the movie at any of the 10 showings I've been to.

Many Trek fans have taken non-trek fans to see the movie, and many of them loved it, wanting to know more about the Original Series.

There were sequences on Vulcan that showed Spock growing up there, his family, and introducing the concept of the Vulcans, so the audience got some sense of what was lost.

We also saw the way Kirk's father sacrificed himself to save his wife, Jim Kirk, and the crew of the Kelvin, providing an emotional link for an unfamiliar audience to care about James Kirk.

Spock's emotional reaction to his parents death, and the destruction of his home, is a loss the like of which Spock in the Prime timeline has never dealt with. The scene with Uhura was not so much about Uhura and Spock, as it was about Spock attempting to bury his feelings, and to show Spock's struggle, as well as his loss.

Amanda was introduced earlier in the movie, and it was made clear that she was his Mother. A general audience would still react to her fall, but we feel it more because we effectively knew her as a character better.

Old Spock was introduced, and his reaction to James Kirk was consistent with the Spock we last saw in "Unification", and had known since "The Cage", but still provided enough information for a general audience that this was indeed an older Spock from the future, and knew who Kirk was.

Again, this illustrates how and why my "yes" and "no" response that it works without knowing anything about Trek, but has a deeper impact to those with intimate knowledge of it's history, applies.

We'll have to agree to disagree, since neither of us is going to change how we reacted to the movie.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

No, just 'pandering' for 'cheap emotional reactions from the audience'.

I don't think it was pandering for cheap emotional reactions from the audience; I think it was pandering for a cheap emotional reaction from Spock. The audience - at least the audience that I saw it with - couldn't have cared less beyond the cool special effect aspect.

I think it would've been much more powerful had Nero murdered Spock's parents, and then have Vulcan be the main target for the finale in place of Earth.

Agreed. I can imagine Nero disabling the defenses on Vulcan, an destroying the fleet, while staging a raid to capture the "Vulcan High Counsel" (along with their families and staff on-site, of course). The emotional responses would have been DRAMATICALLY greater if Spock, trying to be the "good Vulcan," saw that result in his actually watching him mother die. (Remember, he didn't even see her die... she died off-screen!). Then, Spock reacts with his "un-Vulcan reaction" and sets off, in defiance of orders from Starfleet to stay and assist at Vulcan, in pursuit of Nero. And, of course, Nero is only doing this in order to go recover "old Spock" from where Nero stranded him, to force "old Spock" to watch the destruction of Vulcan (since, obviously, you could never see the destruction of any planet from the surface of any other planet, could you... and if, by chance, you COULD... your planet would likely suffer the same fate!).

The whole final battle takes place in the Vulcan system... with Vulcan being the planet at risk. (Enough with the "let's threaten Earth because Earth is the center of the universe!" sci-fi claptrap!).

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Nice to see you ramble on and on about this 'cheap stunt' but completely ignore your other big Fail. You know? The one where you tried to bash Abrams and Co for placing the phaser turrets on the Enterprise's hull but having other turrets pop up and actually fire the shots.

And I knew you wouldn't be able to remain civil and avoid getting personal for very long. I was hopeful... really, I was... but I'm not surprised to see you go "snarky" and sarcastic, and start treating it as though you need to "defeat" me. It's pathetic... (sigh)

"Ramble on?" Yes, because I didn't bow to your "greater wisdom" the first time you disputed my statement, it's now "rambling." Gotcha..

"Big fail?" What are you, twelve? Use of that sort of "kewl-speak" is exactly what I'm referring to when I use that term... "kewl"... in the sense I usually use it.

And I'm curious, what exactly did you want to see me do to respond to that? Bow down in front of you and... service you? Sheesh...

A photo was posted which seems to indicate that I may have had a mistaken impression. Yet, the "fire everything we've got" sequence which I saw on-screen did seem to have many, many more "points of origin" for the phaser fire than that shot illustrates. I've only seen the movie once, in the Austin TX IMAX theater, so if my memory is misstating that element (and I'm not convinced it is yet... that's just one still, after all) it would be understandable, I think.

So, since I don't currently have a response to that point, I didn't respond. I think that the post, providing the image in question, was the last point that needed to be made in that regard.

But... you don't care about that. Your post makes it clear. You're more concerned about "defeating Cary."

And that, frankly, is the whole point of the (fairly positive) exchange from earlier which involved J. Allen... that this discussion is supposed to be about the subject... that is, the movie... not about "JIHAD!!!!! ON ANY ONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME!!!!"

Did you miss that?

 

[Disillusioned]

Of coarse money doesn't always translate into critical success or quality, look at Revenge of the Fallen, but in this case this movie gained exactly that; critical success, and I believe that it was a quality film, the performances were of great quality, well done indeed, the special effects weren't the type to make you say "oh what a nice CG effect", IE they didn't take me out of the film but instead fulfilled their purpose and therefore were of quality, and the story itself had great emotional depth and was a good drama.

Actually the special effects did exactly that for me. There was so much focus on making everything look cool that I kept doing mental eye rolls and face palms for most of the movie. What really took me out of the story (what little there was of it) were the constant lens flares, the shaky-cam, and the other weird cinematography they did. And as I've said before, there was nothing "deep" about the story, which was just one cliche after another.

This film in many peoples opinions was a quality film,

And not everyone has the same standards or idea of what a quality film is. It doesn't matter to me that other people saw that contrived and cliched mess and thought it was a quality film, because I saw the same movie and thought it was a horrible movie.

although you may not have thought so in this case you are in a minority, which is just fine, there is nothing necessarily wrong with your particular taste, it is what it is, but don't make these grand statements declaring the film to be garbage because that would be the wrong thing to do, you a Trekkie for heavens sake, act like it, you should know better!

That last bit doesn't make any sense, sorry. And if you think being in the minority is just fine, then why did you bring it up as a talking point? I can state this movie is garbage because I watched it and that's what I thought of it.

Do you know what "reboot" means? A "reboot" is anytime something gets started up again.

I'm not going to debate the meaning of a word when it's pretty obvious what I mean by it. I don't even know why anyone bothers trying to argue semantics about this movie being a reboot when it's really obvious that it is.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture was a reboot.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was a reboot.
To an extent, Star Trek: The Next Generation and subsequent spin-offs were reboots.

I already had this argument with someone else and what it came down to is that all the spin-offs add to the larger story so they aren't reboots.

Every time there is a new James Bond actor, there is a reboot.

One could certainly argue that, but that doesn't really mean much.

It always comes down to this in every thread:
"What I saw on screen was NOT exactly- in every detail- what I remember from childhood. Therefore it is NOT my Star Trek. I won't believe it and you can't make me."

No, it doesn't come down to that at all, and trying to make it into that is a straw man argument.

"Logic is therefore irrelevant,

Just because people don't agree with your reasons for liking this movie doesn't mean they think logic is irrelevant. From my perspective not liking this movie is entirely because of logic.

public opinion is irrelevant, critical acclaim is irrelevant, the views and opinions of others are irrelevant."

When it comes to each person's personal opinion, yeah, none of that matters.

The point is, every piece of logic or evidence will be tossed out because it does not fit in with that person's preconceived notion.

Your mileage may certainly vary, but I have yet to see much of any argument about why anyone thought this movie was good. No one has really cited anything from the movie itself, instead relying on the "but it's popular and the 'majority' of people like it" argument.

Anyone who disagrees is 'base', 'a straw-man' or 'one of the mindless/unwashed masses'. (Did I leave any of the more common phrases out?) It is quite sad really.

I use the term "straw man" because attempts at simplifying someone's arguments so they can be attacked is exactly what a straw man argument is. I haven't used any of the other phrases there.

Those who promised us they would not like the movie, still do not like the movie. Those who looked forward to the movie, like the movie.

Which isn't all that surprising considering the amount of information that became available about it just prior to the movie's release.

A few minds were changed, but not many. I am more interested in hearing from those who took a genuine 'wait and see' attitude. I would also like to hear from those whose opinions really were changed. The rest is just an endless rehash.

And I'd like to hear an argument in favor of this movie that's actually based on this movie. It doesn't mean I'll agree with it, and I'll probably still argue against it, but it would be better than just repeating the old "it's popular" argument over and over again.

Sector 7, conversely, the people who love this movie don't accept that someone can legitimately NOT like this movie for valid reasons and also reject what those people say they found lacking in the new movie.

It's not just the haters who have blinders on.

There's that word again, but other than that I have to agree with you.

Orci has repeatedly shown a lot more familiarity with, and thoughtfulness in regard to, TOS and TNG than a lot of the diehards here who criticize him.

That didn't show in any of his writing. Kind of like the fact John Logan was a die hard fan didn't make NEM any better.

He really doesn't have to bow to anyone on the Internet where his Trek bona fides are concerned.

No, he doesn't, and I don't think anyone has suggested that.

- The majority do noy believe this movie is a bad movie,

So?

and the blanket statement that it is

It's not a "blanket statement" to say that you think this movie was bad, it's a statement of personal opinion.

flies in the fact of majority opinion.

Even if that were true, so?

- The assertion that it is IN FACT a bad movie is arrogant and prevalent among the film's detractors.

There's nothing arrogant about not liking a movie and saying so. What's arrogant is saying that since you liked the movie that invalidates everyone else's opinion.

- The implication among some that the movie is bad somehow implies superiority is also arrogant.

What's arrogant is implying that holding the opinion of the "majority" makes your opinion more valid than anyone else's honest opinion that this movie is bad.

It should be noted that typing fast does not mean you are emotionally detached, especially since you keep repeating, in way too many words, that 95% of reviewers do not statistically matter when judging the movie.

They don't. What I saw was clearly a bad movie and that's all that matters from my point of view. Your mileage may vary.

- I loved the movie.
- You didn't.
- Both of our viewpoints are equally valid, leading to an impasse when deciding whether the movie is good.
- To resolve the impasse between both sides, democracy can make a determination based on majority opinion.
- Majority opinion can only be established by looking at relative box office receipts and the majority of critical and anecdotal opinion.
- On that basis, I assert that this is a good movie.
- You have yet to provide evidence that my assessment of majority opinion is false or grossly misleading.

Can you make any argument that this movie is good that is actually based on this movie and not just an appeal to "majority rules?" The idea that the majority (which can't really be established without 100% viewership) view is the "right" view is also illogical. If the majority of people thought slavery was okay, would that make it so?

The problem is that many of the detractors, especially abroad on the interwebs, have cemented a reputation for anyone with a negative review.

Which is entirely irrelevant to any discussion here. If you or anyone else can't argue based on what's actually been said, then trying to excuse it by saying the type of thing your saying here is just a distraction from what the argument actually is. You and everyone else can go on and one about "JJ raped my childhood," "wrong font," or whatever other cliche you want to paint critics of this movie with, but neither I nor anyone else I've seen in this thread or the others I've participated in have said anything like that.

So perhaps, if you want to preach about being fair and reasonable, you should also look at your fellow critics and evaluate how they act. Then perhaps have a word with them as well.

First off, it's not like I know any of these people, so "having a word with them" not only isn't possible, but would be entirely pointless. But what it really comes down to is that nothing they say invalidates my opinion or any of the points I have made. It also doesn't excuse the general bashing of anyone who doesn't like this movie.

 

[AnyStar]

my dislike isnt based on a singular event, but more that to me the entire film is an endless sequence of re-imagined events based on what i like to think of as "the writes had a fishbowl full of scraps of paper with every little-known obscure on screen references to past events. enough to fill the time frame of the film were randomly chosen, then pondered and vomited out to conform to JJ's vision."

thats what turned me off, the entire film was a series of "its still star-trek, but look: its different!"

yuk, call the next one anything: just dont call it star-trek, re-boot the name too.

edit: also the blue hue forced over the whole movie, and lense flares EVERYWHERE every 10 seconds... just made it worse

 

[EnsignRicky]

A thousand times no.

That's one for every time this thread pops back to the top.

Ok, three hundred and eight times no.

 

[AnyStar]

i've commented on the film several times already, but it just occured to me that i never commented on why i dislike the new ship itself as the thread queries.

1. its a 1/2 done kitbash... why stop 1/2 way? do it right or dont do it.

2. its a fan-design ripoff of Gabe Koerner's design, not only that but in their denials of that there are all sorts of likenings of the design characteristics to real-world inspiration, such as the antique chevy nacelle caps.

3. im not gonna say anything at all about the size...

4. worst of all, those nacelles are WAY too close together.

to all of you that love the new design: more power to you, i'm glad you like it. this is just my 2 cents.

 

[ST-One]

Nice to see you ramble on and on about this 'cheap stunt' but completely ignore your other big Fail. You know? The one where you tried to bash Abrams and Co for placing the phaser turrets on the Enterprise's hull but having other turrets pop up and actually fire the shots.

And I knew you wouldn't be able to remain civil and avoid getting personal for very long. I was hopeful... really, I was... but I'm not surprised to see you go "snarky" and sarcastic, and start treating it as though you need to "defeat" me. It's pathetic... (sigh)

"Ramble on?" Yes, because I didn't bow to your "greater wisdom" the first time you disputed my statement, it's now "rambling." Gotcha..

Yes, you do ramble on and on.
You bury any good points you may make in boring, pedantic and even arrogant screen-page after screen-page-filling posts.

"Big fail?" What are you, twelve? Use of that sort of "kewl-speak" is exactly what I'm referring to when I use that term... "kewl"... in the sense I usually use it.

That's the arrogance I was talking about.

And I'm curious, what exactly did you want to see me do to respond to that? Bow down in front of you and... service you? Sheesh...

No.

A photo was posted which seems to indicate that I may have had a mistaken impression. Yet, the "fire everything we've got" sequence which I saw on-screen did seem to have many, many more "points of origin" for the phaser fire than that shot illustrates. I've only seen the movie once, in the Austin TX IMAX theater, so if my memory is misstating that element (and I'm not convinced it is yet... that's just one still, after all) it would be understandable, I think.

So, you've seen the movie once, months ago.
Still you come here and state with such conviction the correctness of your observation that Abrams and Co are just morons who don't respect anything and just copy details just to ignore them.

So, since I don't currently have a response to that point, I didn't respond. I think that the post, providing the image in question, was the last point that needed to be made in that regard.

Well... just to state again: You are wrong about the phaser turrets.
If the film itself weren't evidence enough for this, then there is the Starship simulator in the Blu-Ray extras that proves, without a doubt, that there are only those (familiar) turrets there that fire the phaser shots.

But... you don't care about that. Your post makes it clear. You're more concerned about "defeating Cary."

And that, frankly, is the whole point of the (fairly positive) exchange from earlier which involved J. Allen... that this discussion is supposed to be about the subject... that is, the movie... not about "JIHAD!!!!! ON ANY ONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME!!!!"

Did you miss that?

Spare us the persecution complex, will you?

 

[Cary L. Brown]

The destruction of Vulcan, if you are familiar with some of the writer's interviews, was to make that point that things were different, that they were not going to push the reset button.

Yes. Which is really central to my calling it a "stunt." It was done for that "shock effect." That's what they're saying, that's what I'm saying.

When Vulcan was destroyed, I did not see anything resembling cheering at that point in the movie at any of the 10 showings I've been to.

Dude, there are other movies out there, you might want to broaden your horizons a bit. I'm guessing that you didn't go to those "ten showings" with a date?

In the Austin IMAX theater, the audience clapped at all the big, "kewl effects shots." I also know that at least one opening-night show in Columbus Ohio had that, and that it happened in Chicago and in Raleigh, because friends of mine who went to shows there told me that it happened.

I'm not claiming that this happened every time, in every theater. This is called "anecdotal evidence." As I often say in my posts... "your mileage may vary."

Many Trek fans have taken non-trek fans to see the movie, and many of them loved it, wanting to know more about the Original Series.

I'm sure that there have been fans who took non-fans to the show, and that some of them liked it enough to want to know more. I'm even sure that you could say "many." Of course, this is an unsupported claim, not even really "anecdotal" in nature. We have no idea how many times this happened. However, I feel pretty confident in saying that if it happened far, far more rarely than "hey, dude, let's go see a movie this weekend... what's on? Oh, that Star Track movie, with Doctor Spock and the dude who sleeps with hot green chicks!" And that, after walking out of the theater, those folks would almost entirely forget about the movie, and next time would go see some other movie, which they'll also immediately forget about right afterwards.

The number of "Trek fans" in general is pretty small these days. The number who loved the movie is smaller... and those who brought "non-fans who became fans" is probably pretty small indeed... on the same level as "those who know the combination to Kirk's cabin safe."

Can I prove that? Of course not. But at least I have a train of logic I've followed to get there. Can you demonstrate why we should accept that there was any significant percentage of the movie's viewership which "recruited new fans?" I remain unconvinced.

There were sequences on Vulcan that showed Spock growing up there, his family, and introducing the concept of the Vulcans, so the audience got some sense of what was lost.

You can't consider the sequences which were not shown on-screen... most viewers will not know anything but that which was shown on-screen... which is limited to "Young Spock gets bullied at school" and "Late-teen Spock tells the Vulcan Science Academy what to do with their offer." The "deleted scenes" really add depth to this, and should have been kept IMHO, but they weren't.

We also saw the way Kirk's father sacrificed himself to save his wife, Jim Kirk, and the crew of the Kelvin, providing an emotional link for an unfamiliar audience to care about James Kirk.

Actually, I did care about George Kirk... that sequence was very effective in that regard. But the connection between George Kirk and James Kirk was effectively non-existent, except for the "birthin' the baby" sequence (and very few of us remember being babies, do we?) and the fact that Pike talked about George Kirk in his little monologue at the bar. There was very little in the way of on-screen material to connect "Jim Kirk" and "George Kirk" in this film. There wasn't even a "My name is Diego Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die" bit... which I think should have been a major "Kirk" theme, shouldn't it have been?

Spock's emotional reaction to his parents death, and the destruction of his home, is a loss the like of which Spock in the Prime timeline has never dealt with.

True, but we've seen the "Kirk tweaks Spock to get an emotional reaction" before.

All loss, ultimately, is PERSONAL loss. We can shrug off the destruction of Pompey, except as an interesting anecdote, but can be deeply personally impacted by the death of our next-door neighbor. The loss Spock felt here wasn't treated "personally" enough, IMHO. The destruction of Vulcan actually CHEAPENED the loss of Amanda, as far as I'm concerned. I think that the story would have been orders of magnitude better had they not pulled the "stunt" of destroying Vulcan and had focused much more on the "personal loss" side of things.

The scene with Uhura was not so much about Uhura and Spock, as it was about Spock attempting to bury his feelings, and to show Spock's struggle, as well as his loss.

There were many scenes with Uhura. I presume you mean the "kissing" scene? I don't fundamentally object to that, but I think it would have been far more relevant without the "my mom is dead... AND my planet blew up... " thing. The scene would have made more sense, IMHO, had it only been the loss of his mother (and if his mother had been much better developed in terms of the movie's story).

Amanda was introduced earlier in the movie, and it was made clear that she was his Mother. A general audience would still react to her fall, but we feel it more because we effectively knew her as a character better.

A "general audience" barely acknowledge this. On-screen, she was almost entirely undeveloped, except for what's essentially a "thought balloon explanation" in one scene where, as you say, we are told "this is Spock's mom." She was never developed, on-screen, as an actual CHARACTER. She was, essentially, a "prop." The stuff that established her as a person was all left on the cutting room floor.

Old Spock was introduced, and his reaction to James Kirk was consistent with the Spock we last saw in "Unification", and had known since "The Cage", but still provided enough information for a general audience that this was indeed an older Spock from the future, and knew who Kirk was.

Yes, that's true. You're clearly stating that for a purpose, but I fail to see what point you're trying to make by saying it.

Again, it seems to me that the casting of Nimoy in this film was really just another "stunt." Is there anything in the storyline of this movie that could not have been there had Nimoy not appeared? I can't see anything. In fact, his introduction on the ice-planet seemed to me as serving no real storytelling purpose whatsoever except to strain the bounds of credulity. Unless you accept that "God was steering everything" in the course of this movie, it's inconceivable that Kirk would have randomly been dumped on the same planet Spock was stranded on, landed within about two blocks' distance of Spock's cave, and wandered randomly into that cave. It's not reasonable... it's not logical... it doesn't make me accept the movie any further. It would ONLY make sense if there was some "invisible hand" behind the scenes steering everything in the universe. It is literally a miracle which we were shown.

 

[ST-One]

In the Austin IMAX theater, the audience clapped at all the big, "kewl effects shots." I also know that at least one opening-night show in Columbus Ohio had that, and that it happened in Chicago and in Raleigh, because friends of mine who went to shows there told me that it happened.

And, that's the fault of the movie that there are some idiots in the audience?
Those same morons would probably also have clapped when Krypton exploded at the beginning of Superman.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

But... you don't care about that. Your post makes it clear. You're more concerned about "defeating Cary."

And that, frankly, is the whole point of the (fairly positive) exchange from earlier which involved J. Allen... that this discussion is supposed to be about the subject... that is, the movie... not about "JIHAD!!!!! ON ANY ONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME!!!!"

Did you miss that?

Spare us the persecution complex, will you?

It's not "persecution complex" to point out that you choose to get personal in virtually every conversation. You get personal, and expect to be given a pass on it. I don't give you a pass, and you get all huffy about anyone who doesn't like your "personal attack" style has a "persecution complex."

I've got no "complex" here. You just think you're entitled to behave like a jerk. But you're not.

Here's a suggestion. Stop getting personal, and I'll stop calling you on it. Keep the conversation focused on the topic, not on the poster, and we can discuss the topic openly. Isn't that what we're all here to do?

 

[AnyStar]

Again, it seems to me that the casting of Nimoy in this film was really just another "stunt." Is there anything in the storyline of this movie that could not have been there had Nimoy not appeared? I can't see anything. In fact, his introduction on the ice-planet seemed to me as serving no real storytelling purpose whatsoever except to strain the bounds of credulity. Unless you accept that "God was steering everything" in the course of this movie, it's inconceivable that Kirk would have randomly been dumped on the same planet Spock was stranded on, landed within about two blocks' distance of Spock's cave, and wandered randomly into that cave. It's not reasonable... it's not logical... it doesn't make me accept the movie any further. It would ONLY make sense if there was some "invisible hand" behind the scenes steering everything in the universe. It is literally a miracle which we were shown.

you can take Nimoy's casting as a mistake a bit further.

by all rights, even though Spock traveled to this "alternate universe" via the black hole, merely the fact that it IS an alternate universe a Spock from the past appearing would be THAT universes future-Spock that appeared, not the Nimoy from our universe.

isnt hypothetical time/dimensional travel a bitch!

 

[Cary L. Brown]

In the Austin IMAX theater, the audience clapped at all the big, "kewl effects shots." I also know that at least one opening-night show in Columbus Ohio had that, and that it happened in Chicago and in Raleigh, because friends of mine who went to shows there told me that it happened.

And, that's the fault of the movie that there are some idiots in the audience?
Those same morons would probably also have clapped when Krypton exploded at the beginning of Superman.

Well, I'm not sure I agree, because I think that the opening sequence of 1979's "Superman" very effectively made us connect to Jor-El, and to a lesser extent, Lara. We really didn't care about the planet, but those characters mattered.

What is a movie supposed to do? Ultimately, it's intended to manipulate us emotionally. "They make us laugh, they make us cry, they make us scream" and so forth. You've heard that before, I presume?

If the movie is effective at establishing an emotional connection between a character and the audience, then the audience will respond along with the character as the character experiences emotions.

The audience should have felt horror at the destruction of Vulcan. Yet it seems that very few people did... only the Trek fans did, because we already knew about Vulcan. If there is no response of horror, then it's entirely understandable that the audience will just see the effect, and respond to that effect by saying "cool." It WAS a cool effect, after all, wasn't it?

 

[ST-One]

But... you don't care about that. Your post makes it clear. You're more concerned about "defeating Cary."

And that, frankly, is the whole point of the (fairly positive) exchange from earlier which involved J. Allen... that this discussion is supposed to be about the subject... that is, the movie... not about "JIHAD!!!!! ON ANY ONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME!!!!"

Did you miss that?

Spare us the persecution complex, will you?

It's not "persecution complex" to point out that you choose to get personal in virtually every conversation. You get personal, and expect to be given a pass on it. I don't give you a pass, and you get all huffy about anyone who doesn't like your "personal attack" style has a "persecution complex."

I've got no "complex" here. You just think you're entitled to behave like a jerk. But you're not.

Here's a suggestion. Stop getting personal, and I'll stop calling you on it. Keep the conversation focused on the topic, not on the poster, and we can discuss the topic openly. Isn't that what we're all here to do?

So, what do you have to say about the fact that you are simply wrong about what you said here (as proven by on-screen reference and the BD-extras showcasing the ship):

Look at the TMP Enterprise, specifically the top and bottom of the primary hull. There are three pairs of little silver spherical elements, at 90, 0, and 270 degrees, top and bottom. They are surrounded with a little mustard-yellow patch with a thin red outline.

In the TMP ship, those are the phasers.

In the ST'09 ship, those same details are present. But the phasers fire from a series of little pop-up turrets, not from these features.

THAT IS WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. I never said one word about the appearance of the special visual effect intended to represent the beam, did I? You "filled in the blank" without reading what was actually said.

It's generally a good idea to pay attention to what's being said, and if you don't fully understand, either ask or study before you try to counter the point.

The "features" were kept, but purely for visual appearance, not for functionality. That is what I said. That is what I meant.

[...]

Really? Having the same broad general shape, with two elements in the same general vincinity as another ship had them, qualifies as "no functional changes?"

Again, you failed to properly comprehend the point I'd made (about features in the ship model LOOKING LIKE elements from the TMP model but without regard for what the function of those elements was intended to be, and in a fair number of cases which were established on-screen).

What I said was that I'd rather that they had omitted those TMP-copied feature entirely, rather than including them purely for appearance while ignoring the reason that they were there in the first place on the TMP ship. Andrew Probert and a few others actually thought the 1710(r) out, in pretty significant detail. While much was there for visual appearance, granted, it all at least made some semblence of logical sense.

With this ship, it was all done for appearance... but not even particularly creatively ...

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Do you have ANY conception of the concept of "letting it go?" No?

Spare us the persecution complex, will you?

It's not "persecution complex" to point out that you choose to get personal in virtually every conversation. You get personal, and expect to be given a pass on it. I don't give you a pass, and you get all huffy about anyone who doesn't like your "personal attack" style has a "persecution complex."

I've got no "complex" here. You just think you're entitled to behave like a jerk. But you're not.

Here's a suggestion. Stop getting personal, and I'll stop calling you on it. Keep the conversation focused on the topic, not on the poster, and we can discuss the topic openly. Isn't that what we're all here to do?

So, what do you have to say about the fact that you are simply wrong about what you said here (as proven by on-screen reference and the BD-extras showcasing the ship):

Look at the TMP Enterprise, specifically the top and bottom of the primary hull. There are three pairs of little silver spherical elements, at 90, 0, and 270 degrees, top and bottom. They are surrounded with a little mustard-yellow patch with a thin red outline.

In the TMP ship, those are the phasers.

In the ST'09 ship, those same details are present. But the phasers fire from a series of little pop-up turrets, not from these features.

THAT IS WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. I never said one word about the appearance of the special visual effect intended to represent the beam, did I? You "filled in the blank" without reading what was actually said.

It's generally a good idea to pay attention to what's being said, and if you don't fully understand, either ask or study before you try to counter the point.

The "features" were kept, but purely for visual appearance, not for functionality. That is what I said. That is what I meant.

[...]

Really? Having the same broad general shape, with two elements in the same general vincinity as another ship had them, qualifies as "no functional changes?"

Again, you failed to properly comprehend the point I'd made (about features in the ship model LOOKING LIKE elements from the TMP model but without regard for what the function of those elements was intended to be, and in a fair number of cases which were established on-screen).

What I said was that I'd rather that they had omitted those TMP-copied feature entirely, rather than including them purely for appearance while ignoring the reason that they were there in the first place on the TMP ship. Andrew Probert and a few others actually thought the 1710(r) out, in pretty significant detail. While much was there for visual appearance, granted, it all at least made some semblence of logical sense.

With this ship, it was all done for appearance... but not even particularly creatively ...

 

[ST-One]

If the movie is effective at establishing an emotional connection between a character and the audience, then the audience will respond along with the character as the character experiences emotions.

The audience should have felt horror at the destruction of Vulcan. Yet it seems that very few people did... only the Trek fans did, because we already knew about Vulcan. If there is no response of horror, then it's entirely understandable that the audience will just see the effect, and respond to that effect by saying "cool." It WAS a cool effect, after all, wasn't it?

And how do you know what all the people who have see the film thought about Vulcan's destruction?
And why do you even care so long as it provoked the intended (if it even is intended) reaction in you?

But since generalizing based on some idiots' reactions seems the way to go, I might as well say that the Enterprise-D's crash in Generations was less than effective a tense action scene, since some guys in the cinema I saw the film in actually laughed about the shot where one crew-member is hit and knocked unconscious by a piece of equipment.

 

[AnyStar]

But since generalizing based on some idiots' reactions...

this isnt the first time today you've been calling people idiots, but you seem to be the only one behaving like one

 

[ST-One]

But since generalizing based on some idiots' reactions...

this isnt the first time today you've been calling people idiots, but you seem to be the only one behaving like one

I call people that clap at the destruction of Vulcan in Star Trek, laugh at the injuries someone takes during the Enterprise-D's crash in Generations and laugh at the breakfast-scene in Alien 'idiots', thank you very much.