Dennis departed for his own reasons. As for the STID thing, it's the exact opposite. He always claimed it was Khan. But I bet you knew this already. Yep. Spot on.
You're not serious, right? The fans have been slinging poo at each other as long as there's been a Star Trek to bitch about.
Devin Faraci makes us Star Trek fans look really stupid. It's embarrassing having that asshole troll among our ranks.
Social commentary is nice, I just have a hard time taking it seriously with what we've got. The film tries to convey that "weaponizing" starfleet is bad even though the Enterprise, not the USS Vengeance has more torpedo bays than all the previous Enterprises combined, including the Enterprise E which was built more towards combat. Or the fact that Kirk tries to send a message that revenge is wrong, despite everything that has gotten our characters to this point was thanks to revenge. Khan acts out his vengeance and winds up getting more than what he wanted. The bad people dead and his followers safe. It's funny how the writers acknowledge that promoting Kirk to the rank of Captain was indeed done too quickly, but the way they tried to rectify it in this film ignored the problem all together. One of the biggest character pieces of the last film was Spock letting go of his logical side and wanting to give into his emotional need for revenge against Nero. By doing so, Kirk and Spock were crowned heroes by all of Starfleet and he was given the Enterprise. So when the same thing happens here, why does Spock get this idea that it's wrong to kill Khan but still think that killing Nero the right thing to do? These two situations are very similar in how they both wanted vengeance against the person who killed someone they cared deeply for, and nobody brings any of it up. There was a good opportunity to make the case for Kirk being promoted too early and revenge being the wrong course of action. They could have had Marcus be the one who pushed for Kirk to becoming Captain so that whenever the right opportunity presented itself, he could rely on Kirk to do the things that other Starfleet captains would see as immoral and/or unethical. When Kirk and Marcus confront each other on the Vengeance, you could have Marcus tell Kirk that it was because of his deliberate act of executing Nero that got him his command, not his noble Captain like qualities that Pike had. He got the chair because Kirk was someone who was willing to kill the enemy even though they were not a threat, just as he hoped he would have done to Khan and probably to the Klingons should the war have started. And that, according to Marcus, is what Starfleet needs in order to survive.
I'd say it's more the fact that training and arming motherfucking terrorists to fight in your proxy wars might have the unintended effect of said terrorists getting pissed with you and smashing huge-ass motherfucking flying machines into your buildings. That's pretty relevant to me.
On the ramp up to the 2009 movie, the G4 channel had the Comic Con coverage, which included him talking on TV about the movie. He said something to the effect of, "Yeah, Nimoy goes back in time to see he really had no career." I do not and never will consider him a Star Trek fan.
Hiding behind the dollar signs and attendance figures is a sure sign of knowing that your movie can't really win when faced with an argument that points out its many, many flaws. Trek fan: "STID was a bad film" Orci: "Yeah but it made tons of cash and millions on non-Trek fans went and watched it!" That's just a refusal to engage with the actual debate, not the way to shoot down all STID nay-sayers. And Orci knows this too. It's far more petulant and childish than anything he accused Dickerson of writing.
Yet when Orci attempted to engage him in debate, instead of answering he continued to spout the same rhethoric.
I saw no serious attempt to engage in any debate about STID's flaws... just a refusal to admit that there were any.
I actually know what it accomplished but I'm not going to tell you what it was unless you tell me what INS accomplished. I could never figure that out.
What did Insurrection accomplish? It answered the question I've always asked when watching DS9. Why isn't the Enterprise involved in the Dominion War? Well, when Starfleet learned that Picard found something non-aggressive in nature that could help end the Dominion War with a lot less casualties, he thought it would be better to not inconvenience 600 backwards thinking hippies than help protect an entire galaxy from Dominion tyranny. I think Starfleet would want to keep that person kind of a person as far away from dealings with the Dominion as much as possible.
The film happens during Dominion negotiations. So the war was either over or hadn't even begun yet. And that's not what Insurrection accomplished to show. Insurrection is a moral tale so complex that it starts discussions every time it is mentioned, even almost 15 years after it got released. Avatar didn't manage that, despite having the same story. The film is made the way that it reveals what you personally really think. Would you wipe out natives to get what you want? Or would you take a stand for them against greed? The film doesn't change you, it only reveals what you are. Because suddenly you find yourself disagreeing with your hero Picard. Or not. It totally depends on what kind of person you are. That's what it accomplishes.
Um, I think that's looking into the movie a little too far and giving it more credit than it deserves. I guess Nemesis then proved that Picard wasn't fit to deal with the impending supernova that would destroy Romulus and would be better served to have Spock try and save them?
You remember the bits and pieces of the movie but, like a poor marksman, you keep missing the [point]. What about the favourable reviews by critics and the positive feedback from the general audience who aren't of the fanboisie? (which you conveniently left out)