View Single Post
Old January 3 2010, 12:27 PM   #2593
BurntSynapse
Lieutenant Commander
 
BurntSynapse's Avatar
 
Location: Patagonian Chile
View BurntSynapse's Twitter Profile
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

archeryguy1701 wrote: View Post
Was that really needed?
The answer to this question is always "no". Even if the entire universe ceased to exist without the X in "Is X really needed?", one could still argue saving the universe is not really needed.

Since it is a "begging the question fallacy" and doesn't contribute anything, I try to stop myself from asking it since it feels like it would be intellectually dishonest, and unless I were also using it regarding things I liked.

I feel obligated to answer what I see as sincere questions, but is answering a sincere question really necessary? It is respectful of productive dialog - yes, but not really necessary.

archeryguy1701 wrote: View Post
Does the fact that it doesn't bother some other people mean that they are unable to think critically, are zealots, or are educationally/experientially disadvantaged?
Again obviously not, but it does mean the "unbothered" are inappropriate for engagement in rational analysis of apparent problems because such work takes effort and motivation. It is like trying to rationally discuss foundational problems of a religious doctrine with its faithful - they typically have an astounding inability to participate.

archeryguy1701 wrote: View Post
But as long as I continue to be entertained and those issues don't pull me out of the movie, I'm not going to get my skivvies in a twist over it.
Of course not. What interests me is the difference in standards. I'm really curious about how one could be pulled out of ANY movie if not this one. startrekrcks presents a solid, ethical standard for enjoyment: If it is Star Trek then startrekrcks loves it . While this rule does not strike me as a sophisticated standard, it certainly is a defensible personal position that does not make any objective claims about this film's performance as measured by generally accepted standards of storytelling.

You mention being "in the film", which is vital for enjoying fiction. When I was in the film as soon as the Kelvin came onscreen and reporting the looks of the lightning storm, then the bridge is being blinded by it, (looking completely different from the external view), and then they report it is "out of visual range", I have to jump out of the film and ask, "What the hell did I just miss?" This was in like the first 10 seconds of the film with 3 things that don't fit, which was then followed by 2 hours of similar, almost non-stop ridiculous self-contradiction! I just can't get a clear grip on claims of "greatness" for the film, which I think are different than claims of personal enjoyment, even though they overlap.
BurntSynapse is offline   Reply With Quote