View Single Post
Old May 16 2010, 05:55 AM   #2620
J. Allen
Best Pony™
 
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]

3D Master wrote: View Post
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.
That explains nothing.

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.
Are you certain? What they call Transparent Aluminum certainly looks like glass or maybe plexiglass to me. Are the bridge components made of plastic? If not, what is it?

So we're basing the critique of the movie on fantasy. Right?

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.
So we're basing the critique of the movie on reality. Right?

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.
Ah, okay. Reality it is, then, since you cite real world reasons as to why aliens looked humanoid. This means that you're okay with the bricks in the movie, since those scenes were shot with a tight budget in mind.

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.
That is solely your opinion. It is not an objective fact.

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.
So we're basic the critique on fantasy, then. Right?

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.
Is this your objective and honest review?

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.
Is this part objective or honest?
Are you critiquing it on the level of fantasy or in basis of reality?

That is honest and objective, yes.
I disagree.

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.
I disagree. You assume incorrectly about my motivations.
That is neither honest nor objective.

But you're wrong.
Of course I am, at least in the image that you have constructed basing your assumptions on what I think about the movie. I, on the other hand, disagree with your erroneous assessment of my motivations.

I'm honest and object, and Star Trek is the worst movie I've ever seen in my entire life.
That is not objective. Basing it on reality, you would still be hyperbolic. Basing it on fantasy, you have no grounds to consider it the worst. There are much worse both on a quantitative and qualitative level. The vast majority of well reasoned and schooled Critics, professional at that, disagree with your statements. This means your statements are not objective based on the standard criteria for professional movie critiquing, but are instead completely subjective.

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.
There were only three valid scenes? That is most certainly not objective in any way. It is of a hardcore bias against the film. No established professional Critic has counted only three valid scenes in the movie. The vast majority of them overwhelmingly approve of the movie, and even those who are staunchly against it have found far, far more than three valid scenes in the movie. This makes your statement subjective, and not objective.

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.
That is not an objective statement.

1. It is not a fantasy universe, it's a science fiction movies.
Once more, the term fantasy is being used as an imaginative, not in the genre sense of the word. I have stated the usage of the words "fantastic" and "fantasy" and you are still misunderstanding them and using them incorrectly.

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.
You are in the far, far minority in regards to professional Critics who are trained to review movies using specific methods. Your statements are subjective, not objective. Even Roger Ebert, a well known Critic who commands a great deal of respect and maintains a marked level of authority when it comes to movies, enjoyed Star Trek XI. His final verdict was 2.5/4.0 stars. That is not a bad review. It's not great, but it's not a bomb, and it's certainly not a recommendation not to see the movie, and further, it is most assuredly not considered the worst movie in what would be Roger Ebert's exceptionally large repertoire of critiqued movies. Roger Ebert's review is objective. It is balanced, honest, and he makes his stance clearly and with reason. Your statements have been very vitriolic, almost laced with an angry tone, and yet you insist your statements are honest and objective, when they most certainly are not.

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.
So, you're being honest and objective, but they created your hatred. They did it. Interesting. I believe I will let your statements stand as testaments of themselves.
__________________
:: :: ::
Visit Brony Kingdom, where all of your wildest dreams will come true.
:: :: ::
-=- My Patron Saint is Twilight Sparkle -=-
J. Allen is offline   Reply With Quote