View Single Post
Old May 15 2010, 07:38 PM   #2611
J. Allen
Dance Machine
J. Allen's Avatar
Location: United States
Send a message via ICQ to J. Allen Send a message via AIM to J. Allen Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to J. Allen Send a message via Yahoo to J. Allen
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

BurntSynapse wrote: View Post
Luther Sloan wrote: View Post
I look at the believability of a film, the story, the characterization, the effects, and many other elements when making a judgement. And I thought Star Trek measures up pretty darn well in a lot of departments.
Luther Sloan wrote: View Post
Also, to say that a film is good based on the fact that it has the title Star Trek in it is simply not true.
I tend to agree with you, but some people do claim that "Good= I liked it" and that "If it's Star Trek, then I like it." Therefore, by such people's standards (even though they are generally considered "poor" criteria) the film is good. The accuracy of any observation that people hold what might be considered unreasonable views is not put in question simply because the views are demonstrably unreliable or inconsistent with norms of reasonable thinking.

On the other hand, popularity of unreasonable ideas (nor profitability of evil views) don't make them reasonable (or virtuous).

Having said that, can you explain why you thought the film believable? Specifically, I'm working on a "Minute 100" blog entry, when Spock mentally rapes an unconscious Romulan who was shot by Kirk. The plan they explained earlier was for Spock to get the info from the ship's computer, but without a word, the plan changed completely in the middle of a battle. Spock was then able to meld with a mind that does not exist, since the mind only exists when very specific brain processes are operating, and unconscious brains cannot produce a mind any more than a combustion-free candle can produce light. IMO: not believable or consistent.

As for believability, (your first criteria) I also thought about after the mental rape, when Kirk first asks about "it" when they are supposed to be rescuing Pike, since Kirk wasn't to tell altSpock about Spock Prime, or his ship. How the hell does Spock know of the "black hole device" being "stolen" from someone? When did that conversation take place? Inconsistent and unbelievable, IMO.

Next, why are there hundreds of people outside Starfleet Academy & HQ running TOWARD a giant, flaming pillar of death? Wouldn't they be on communicators trying to avoid whatever was about to happen? Unbelievable response on their part, IMO.
Star Trek (2009) is as believable as any other incarnation of Star Trek. There doesn't need to be a comparison. You're trying to compare two fantastic (not in reference to an indicator of quality) stories that contain elements of science and reason which give them a level of believability, but suffice to say, one is not more believable than the other in that regard. It's like saying "I know Christianity is wrong because Judaism is right". You have no verifiable data to support it beyond mere supposition. It all comes down to personal taste. You can point out plot holes, and people can point out plot holes in the movies you enjoy. You can say it's insane/weird/inconsistent, and others can point out insane/weird/inconsistencies in your favorite movies.

It is nothing more than a tempest in a teapot.

Like My Little Pony? Join us at Brony Kingdom!

-= St. John of Trenton, Patron Saint of Cute Ponies =-
Bestowed upon me by Pondwater
J. Allen is offline   Reply With Quote