View Single Post
Old June 3 2009, 08:58 PM   #2262
Trent Roman
Rear Admiral
 
Trent Roman's Avatar
 
Location: The Palace of Pernicious Pleasures
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

Minuialeth wrote: View Post
You felt it was dumb, that's not the same thing as the movie being dumb. People making a generalisation of their personnal opinion is tiring.
I did indeed feel that it was dumb, but I also think it was dumb. And with all the plot holes, contrivances and foregone conclusions that happens in the film, I'd be willing to argue that on an objective basis.

(As an aside, I've always thought a good indicator of how much one enjoys a film is the extent one is willing to go to to explain away such inconsistencies. I've seen some pretty spectacular sophistry here and elsewhere to that effect, but having disliked most all other aspects the movie, I don't feel particularly interested in such efforts.)

Too bad because STXI isn't a prequel. It can't be since it's set in an alternate timeline.
Piffle and semantics. It's a film that takes place before previous filmed material; it is both prequel and reboot. The salient point here is that the film fails to deliver anything new, fails to move the metastory forward.

Except that, reading the very beginning of your post and the words you use ("dragged off", "so called", "unimpressed") you weren't free of any (negative in that instance) bias either!
I was turned off by the trailers and the setting, which did reflect the film's problems (the trailers looked like any generic action film... and this movie was any generic action film). I've approached other films with this kind of skepticism before and nonetheless been convinced by viewing the movie itself (such as "Batman Begins"--after the last movie to bear that name, I wasn't expecting much [and it was a prequel!], but the quality of the film soon made a convert out of me, which this one did not). As for 'so-called', that's retrospective. I obviously didn't know going in the extent to which the movie wouldn't feel like Star Trek.

As for the rest of your review...I wondered several times if another version of the movie had been released in France.
I wouldn't know; I'm Canadian.

Australis wrote: View Post
If you didn't like it, fine, and you raise salient points, but the 'downside' words let the whole thing down.
I don't know what 'downside words' are, and Googling doesn't turn up anything relevant, so I can't really respond to that.

Ovation wrote: View Post
The use of "one" as a pronoun here, as opposed to "I", implies that the expectations Trent has of Trek are the correct ones. Ergo, if you don't share them, you're obviously not the same "quality" of fan he is.
The use of the word "one", or also frequently "we", in my writing comes from over a decade of scholastic and academic writing where the use of the pronoun "I" was actively discouraged and penalized, as being 'too subjective' where objectivity was desired. Not something I ever agreed with, but it's pretty much a permanent part of the way I write now, and you can look elsewhere than this review to see that. If this is what bothered you, then feel free to replace all instances of the plural with the singular.

Another presumption that it is not possible to enjoy the film, as, clearly, suspending disbelief enough to do so causes "bodily harm".
That's nothing; you should read the review where I tossed credibility's battered corpse from a tall ravine.

"You just want to throw a shoe at the screen" supposes that everyone does, rather than just him. [etc...]
And the risk of being 'offensive' again, I really do think some people are being oversensitive if they need to go picking at pronouns and sentence structure and the vividness of my metaphors to find 'proof' that I'm tarring everybody who liked the film. I most certainly think it is a bad movie, and I would indeed be willing to argue that many of its failings are technical in nature and not just individual taste (of course, techne and it's applicability also vary from person to person); but from there to getting all bristly as though personally insulted... I don't see it. If you spend your time being offusqued whenever someone dislikes something you like (or vice versa), you'll be permanently peeved. If you disagree with my assesment of the film, it seems the thing to do would be to answer on the film's merits instead of trying to deflect onto straw men of some kind of vaguely trespassed etiquette of expression. (Not that I'm actually challenging you to do so, mind; there are already plenty of reviews, here and else, effulgent in their praise of the film for me to consult.)

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
__________________
Obdurants and Amusings - Behind the Shampoo Curtain
Trent Roman is offline   Reply With Quote