View Single Post
Old May 16 2010, 04:16 AM   #2618
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

Sarek of Vulcan wrote: View Post
It depends upon how you would define honest and objective. One does not necessarily prerequisite the other accurately.
Well, if you're honest and objective, you define honest and object as... honest and objective. And I did not says anything about one then the other, or vice versa, or only one of the too, no, I said, honest AND objective. That rather requires both at the same time, or you don't have honest AND objective.

How many starships have you built?
What is the design layout for that section of the ship that has brick walls? Is it brick?

You see, I can ask these questions because we're not dealing with a reality, we're dealing with a fantasy. For all we know the brick wall could be an insulator that takes on the appearance of brick, yet has the qualities of steel or tritanium. There is no way for you to know, and to suggest otherwise is to remove the fantasy back into reality. At that point, when you judge the fantasy by reality, it fails, which is an unbalanced judgment.
They are bricks, with cement between them. And you see, we are NOT dealing with a fantasy, we are dealing with SCIENCE FICTION. For SCIENCE FICTION, you actually require at the very least, some common sense.

If you are upset at the brick walls, then you must also drag the rest of Star Trek into reality and base it on that. Warp drive, transporters, earth like planets every week, funny forehead aliens that are extraordinarily like human beings.
Bullshit. Warp Drive, transporters, Earth-like planets every week, that's science fiction, and funnily enough, the more we know, the more science advances, the more reality starts to look like Star Trek.

Warp Drive - aka, Alcubierre (the guy who did the math and wrote the theory) Warp Drive, is a genuine scientific theory, and works.

We already got transporters - just energy for now, but we got them.

Mars had life, and undoubtedly still has life. Europa almost certainly has life, algae at a minimum. That's just three planetary bodies in one solar system alone. Recent biologists: some water in a comet/asteroid liquid at its core, could be enough to have life thriving in that asteroid. Combine that with the recent sightings of the building blocks of life in most star-birthing nebulas; and living planets should be pretty much everywhere.

And the forehead aliens; well, humans had to play them, and no television series has Avatar's budget.

If design is your issue, then you must dislike the plywood sets used on the original series (some of it quite noticeable). Perhaps you have issues with the obvious matte paper photos of starfields and nebulae that are plastered about the bridge, or perhaps Captain Kirk's Samsonite luggage?
Nope, no problems at all. You see, they were limited in technology and budget, a 170 million dollar summer blockbuster - not so much. Like I said; The ffing Asylum, ripoffs on a shoestring budget, manages better set-dressing a 170 million dollar summer blockbuster.

So you must tell me whether you are going to judge this movie based on reality, in which all Star Trek movies would fail, or judge it based in fantasy, in which case you cannot complain about something with which you would only have a superficial acquaintance.
No, I base them upon SCIENCE FICTION. You know, this is a SCIENCE FICTION movie. And no, I do not have so little knowledge to not know that bricks and cement, simply the lacking proper set dressing, is idiotic.

For example, I LOVE Mortal Kombat. I love that movie, I consider it one of, if not the most enjoyable movies to I've ever watched. I can also tell you, objectively and honestly speaking, it's not a good movie. It isn't quite as bad as some people claim to be; for that you need to go to the the sequel, but it's bad.

See, it can be done, you just have to be willing to be objective and honest about a movie.
Star Trek XI has it's faults. Some of them plot based, others set based. It is, on the whole, however, a good movie.
No, it is on the whole however an extremely bad movie. The plot is... non-existent, there are just plotholes. There's not a single properly executed character-arc. Kirk is an asshole, who is taught he is always right, and thus has no growth, no change, and remains an asshole. The claim that this movie is about cheating, is utter bullshit. Every character is an idiot, Kirk's promotion is idiotic, etc. etc. etc. The camera work is horrible and dizzying. The Enterprise, instead of sticking to the design of the designer hired, is instead a mishmash of different styles and design philosophies, construction techniques and eras, as if they took the nacelles from one ship, the saucer form another, the engineering section from another, slapped it together, and hoped it worked. Then there's reducing Uhura to Spock's girlfriend. The idiocy of spending a whole time of Kirk trying to convince Pike there's a trap, and then when he finally does, have Pike stop the Enterprise, but they're at Vulcan already - making the entire scene useless and pointless. The idiocy of having two CGI monsters, and one monster grabbing the other... and tossing it away, not even killing the other monster. (How about using all those wasted millions on set-dressing instead!) The ridiculous juvenile jokes, the lack of any scientific merit whatsoever, a villain that is a frothing at the mouth idiot, putting Spock, who before only started a genuine relationship with a woman if his mind was either addled by some alien drugs, or spores, or by the Pon Farr, in a relationship with no more than writers saying so; which would have been bad enough on its own as this is a character development that actually needs to be dealt with, but on top of that... it's with one of his students.

And on, and on, and on, and on. I can spend a week writing and I still wouldn't have them all. Star Trek is a level of ineptness in each and every way that is mind boggling.

And I am objective and honest about the movie.
I disagree. Your posts indicate little to no objectivity.

Example One

Example Two

Example Three

In fact, in example three, you call Star Trek XI the worst movie you have ever seen. Ever, whether Star Trek or not. Do you consider that even remotely honest and objective? You have opinions, strong ones, but that does not make them fact, neither does it take away from the successes the movie has garnered.
That is honest and objective, yes. You see, you are the one not honest and objective. You like the movie so much you haven't been honest and objective about it in ages; you can only see it as a good movie, as a great movie, so if someone comes along who after analyzing it, claims it's the worst movie he's ever seen, you don't even bother examining the objective problems he's raised, and dismiss everything as not being objective and honest.

But you're wrong. I'm honest and object, and Star Trek is the worst movie I've ever seen in my entire life. It is inept across the board; well, except the casting, the SFX didn't entirely look like more than five years old, and there were three scenes, count them THREE, that weren't riddled with idiocies, plotholes, or set problems. But seriously, having three such scenes isn't achievement, they're not redeeming qualities, proper casting, proper SFX, and competent scenes should have been the norm instead of the exception.

Result being: worst movie I've ever seen. And I've seen quite some bad movies, but in comparison to Star Trek they're master pieces.

The point comes down to this: Are you arguing against the movie versus reality, or are you arguing against the movie in the fantasy universe in which it resides? You seem to bounce back from one to the other, and combine them in your strong hatred of the movie. It is similar to the "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" method of critique, and that is a poor method to follow.
1. It is not a fantasy universe, it's a science fiction movies.

2. What I use, is all the flaws in this movie. From horrifying science, to the plotholes, the bad camera work, the inept writing, horrifically bad sets and set-dressing, the contradictions, the lack of any characters and character development - the only potential development, Spock choosing to be in a relationship without getting his mind f-ed up first WITH HIS STUDENT to boot, being reduced to nothing - he just is - and ON and ON and ON.

3. You keep saying that I'm subjective and that my hatred created all the bad stuff. This does not happen. All the flaws exist, THEY created the hatred, not the other way around. If they didn't exist, there would be no hatred.
3D Master is offline   Reply With Quote