^simple. it's Trek.
But that has no rational basis
of course it does.
Trek brings with it 40 years of philosophical (granted, pseudo-arty) depth. neither ID4, nor Armageddon do that.
Trek is Trek. by itself, it promises something more than wham bam thank you ma'am. neither of those movies do that.
what dkehler wants to know is what makes Trek better than those movies. nothing makes it better. everything makes it better to US.
Trek as a whole brings the philosophical depth, but not the movie. That is what I am referring to. Your love of this movie has an irrational basis in the sense that you are not viewing it in an objective way that fits into the spirit you stated (which was spot-on, btw), but in which the good foundation of Trek excuses the failings of the movie. That is not rational and is a lapse in logic.
Premise: John is a good man. He is good because he is caring and insightful. I like John because he is caring and insightful
John becomes abusive and ignorant
Conclusion: I like John because John is a good man?
See the lapse? The predicate good is contingent upon the predicates caring and insightful. Without the predicates caring and insightful we loose good, and the conclusion must be you DO NOT like John because he is NOT a good man. To attribute characteristics that an object was previously endowed with which it does not currently possess is illogical.
I think the core of the argument is that the predicates of the subject have changed in the perception of an unknown percentage of the community and to like an object for traits previously possessed is a lapse of logic.