RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,328
Posts: 5,353,076
Members: 24,618
Currently online: 654
Newest member: jmacenulty

TrekToday headlines

Sci-Fried To Release New Album
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek into Darkness Soundtrack
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Horse 1, Shatner 0
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Drexler TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Jul 26

Retro Review: His Way
By: Michelle on Jul 26

MicroWarriors Releases Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Ships Of The Line Design Contest
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Next Weekend: Shore Leave 36!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

True Trek History To Be Penned
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

View Poll Results: Grade the movie...
Excellent 706 62.70%
Above Average 213 18.92%
Average 84 7.46%
Below Average 46 4.09%
Poor 77 6.84%
Voters: 1126. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 12 2009, 01:50 AM   #1486
dkehler
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Winnipeg, MB, Canada
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

indranee wrote: View Post
Feofilakt wrote: View Post
indranee wrote: View Post
^simple. it's Trek.
But that has no rational basis
of course it does.

Trek brings with it 40 years of philosophical (granted, pseudo-arty) depth. neither ID4, nor Armageddon do that.

Trek is Trek. by itself, it promises something more than wham bam thank you ma'am. neither of those movies do that.

what dkehler wants to know is what makes Trek better than those movies. nothing makes it better. everything makes it better to US.
Star Trek the series does everything you suggested. Star Trek this latest movie does not and that is the problem that many of us have with it.
__________________
David
dkehler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12 2009, 01:52 AM   #1487
Blue_Trek
Captain
 
Blue_Trek's Avatar
 
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

Originally Posted by Blue_Trek
At the end of the movie, you really do want to see the next adventure this particular group will encounter as they go to warp. And that is what makes this movie the best success, you want to see the sequel.
I really don't. Honestly. My enthusiasm for seeing what these writers and director will do next is pretty much nonexistent.
Now that is what separates the fan base, either your living off the past for your fandom, or your looking at the present and the future.

We are the Neo-Trek fans, Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated
__________________
You are fully capable of deciding your own destiny, the question is, which path will you choose? (Sarek)
Blue_Trek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12 2009, 01:52 AM   #1488
dkehler
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Winnipeg, MB, Canada
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

indranee wrote: View Post
dkehler wrote: View Post
Ovation wrote: View Post
The character development in Star Trek is much better than in either of the other two. Star Trek's plot is its weakest element, but that's hardly a new development for Trek movies (not an excuse, merely an observation). I enjoyed ID4 as a summer popcorn movie (much like I enjoyed Star Trek) but I found Star Trek a superior film (though certainly not perfect). As for Armageddon, I did not connect with any of the characters, so, consequently, I did not enjoy it all that much. I'd rewatch ID4 but it's unlikely I'd revisit Armageddon.
I suggest to you that there was not any more character development in Star Trek than the other movies I mentioned. I suggest to you that you only think there was because the many, many hours of development that came before this movie, but don't really count because that was an alternative universe.
duh. and that was the point of nuTrek anyway.

congratulations, you finally got it.

I really don't mean to pick on you, but your argument seemingly boils down to: A bad movie or one that is a guilty pleasure is automatically better if it's called Star Trek.
__________________
David
dkehler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12 2009, 01:56 AM   #1489
indranee
Vice Admiral
 
indranee's Avatar
 
Location: Warrrrrrrrrshington, DC
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

you and I are here, aren't we? not on some board for ID4 or Armageddon? I know I'm here. been here a while now.

seriously, are you that dense that you don't get what I am (by now) hollerin' atcha?

do I need to get a megaphone?
indranee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12 2009, 02:03 AM   #1490
indranee
Vice Admiral
 
indranee's Avatar
 
Location: Warrrrrrrrrshington, DC
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

dkehler wrote: View Post
indranee wrote: View Post
Feofilakt wrote: View Post

But that has no rational basis
of course it does.

Trek brings with it 40 years of philosophical (granted, pseudo-arty) depth. neither ID4, nor Armageddon do that.

Trek is Trek. by itself, it promises something more than wham bam thank you ma'am. neither of those movies do that.

what dkehler wants to know is what makes Trek better than those movies. nothing makes it better. everything makes it better to US.
Star Trek the series does everything you suggested. Star Trek this latest movie does not and that is the problem that many of us have with it.
oh, so you're telling me Man Trap did the same thing as Amok Time? that Spock's Brain did the same thing as COTEOF? that ATCSL did the same thing as Balance of Terror?
indranee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12 2009, 02:05 AM   #1491
Feofilakt
Lieutenant Commander
 
Feofilakt's Avatar
 
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

indranee wrote: View Post
Feofilakt wrote: View Post
indranee wrote: View Post
^simple. it's Trek.
But that has no rational basis
of course it does.

Trek brings with it 40 years of philosophical (granted, pseudo-arty) depth. neither ID4, nor Armageddon do that.

Trek is Trek. by itself, it promises something more than wham bam thank you ma'am. neither of those movies do that.

what dkehler wants to know is what makes Trek better than those movies. nothing makes it better. everything makes it better to US.
Trek as a whole brings the philosophical depth, but not the movie. That is what I am referring to. Your love of this movie has an irrational basis in the sense that you are not viewing it in an objective way that fits into the spirit you stated (which was spot-on, btw), but in which the good foundation of Trek excuses the failings of the movie. That is not rational and is a lapse in logic.

Premise: John is a good man. He is good because he is caring and insightful. I like John because he is caring and insightful

John becomes abusive and ignorant

Conclusion: I like John because John is a good man?

See the lapse? The predicate good is contingent upon the predicates caring and insightful. Without the predicates caring and insightful we loose good, and the conclusion must be you DO NOT like John because he is NOT a good man. To attribute characteristics that an object was previously endowed with which it does not currently possess is illogical.

I think the core of the argument is that the predicates of the subject have changed in the perception of an unknown percentage of the community and to like an object for traits previously possessed is a lapse of logic.
Feofilakt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12 2009, 02:07 AM   #1492
Griz
Captain
 
Griz's Avatar
 
Location: Olivia MN USA
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

Okay, I have not posted on this board in a long time. I am going to see the movie tomorrow. I have tried to avoid a lot of the spoliers but, for me, it is hard to avoid everything. As an old man (to a lot of you), I was there for the beginning in 1966. I have watched everything from then on. Some has been good and some has been bad, but with everything I watched that was Trek, I kept in mind that it was Trek. I will give my review tomorrow (or Thursday, we oldtimers need our rest after a big outing).
Griz
__________________
"No one is authorized to impose their truth on top of ours despite how strongly they may disagree with it." - Steven Spielberg
Griz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12 2009, 02:10 AM   #1493
dkehler
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Winnipeg, MB, Canada
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

indranee wrote: View Post
dkehler wrote: View Post
indranee wrote: View Post

of course it does.

Trek brings with it 40 years of philosophical (granted, pseudo-arty) depth. neither ID4, nor Armageddon do that.

Trek is Trek. by itself, it promises something more than wham bam thank you ma'am. neither of those movies do that.

what dkehler wants to know is what makes Trek better than those movies. nothing makes it better. everything makes it better to US.
Star Trek the series does everything you suggested. Star Trek this latest movie does not and that is the problem that many of us have with it.
oh, so you're telling me Man Trap did the same thing as Amok Time? that Spock's Brain did the same thing as COTEOF? that ATCSL did the same thing as Balance of Terror?
No, that is not what I'm telling you. Please try again.
__________________
David
dkehler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12 2009, 02:12 AM   #1494
jamestyler
Commodore
 
jamestyler's Avatar
 
Location: jamestyler
View jamestyler's Twitter Profile Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to jamestyler
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

Feofilakt wrote: View Post
Trek as a whole brings the philosophical depth, but not the movie. That is what I am referring to. Your love of this movie has an irrational basis in the sense that you are not viewing it in an objective way that fits into the spirit you stated (which was spot-on, btw), but in which the good foundation of Trek excuses the failings of the movie. That is not rational and is a lapse in logic.
I'm curious... does this cover more than the person you're quoting? It just seems to be quite the attempt to be patronising, with some lazy writing causing some major plot holes.

But the performance was spot on.
__________________
+ The Picard Maneuver | Serious stuff. Sexy spandex.
jamestyler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12 2009, 02:16 AM   #1495
indranee
Vice Admiral
 
indranee's Avatar
 
Location: Warrrrrrrrrshington, DC
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

dkehler wrote: View Post
indranee wrote: View Post
dkehler wrote: View Post
Star Trek the series does everything you suggested. Star Trek this latest movie does not and that is the problem that many of us have with it.
oh, so you're telling me Man Trap did the same thing as Amok Time? that Spock's Brain did the same thing as COTEOF? that ATCSL did the same thing as Balance of Terror?
No, that is not what I'm telling you. Please try again.
no, I think YOU need to try. again.

enlighten me.

please.

how is what I stated different from what you implied in your post, exactly?
indranee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12 2009, 02:16 AM   #1496
Rebma Bowmani
Ensign
 
Location: Dublin,CA
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

The one thing I hated about the movie is that it ended. I have already seen it three times this weekend. I always loved the original series best. The casting in the movie near was perfect. It was great to see my old favorites young and viral again and not to mention easy on the eyes. My favorite was the NuSpock- HOT HOT HOT. I loved his backstory -- and the depth and the anger beneath his cool exterior made him irresistable! Of course the lovely Uhura would go for him - completely believable! Thanks to Abrahms, Star Trek is no longer just for geeks!
Rebma Bowmani is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12 2009, 02:17 AM   #1497
Feofilakt
Lieutenant Commander
 
Feofilakt's Avatar
 
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

jamestyler wrote: View Post
Feofilakt wrote: View Post
Trek as a whole brings the philosophical depth, but not the movie. That is what I am referring to. Your love of this movie has an irrational basis in the sense that you are not viewing it in an objective way that fits into the spirit you stated (which was spot-on, btw), but in which the good foundation of Trek excuses the failings of the movie. That is not rational and is a lapse in logic.
I'm curious... does this cover more than the person you're quoting? It just seems to be quite the attempt to be patronising, with some lazy writing causing some major plot holes.

But the performance was spot on.
Reason for favoring Trek over other popcorn action movies stated by Indranee: Trek, and by extension, Abrams Trek has a philosophical core those movies do not possess
My contention: Trek possesses said qualities, but the new movie does not. To attribute previous qualities to a present form which lacks them is a lapse in logic.
Feofilakt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12 2009, 02:17 AM   #1498
indranee
Vice Admiral
 
indranee's Avatar
 
Location: Warrrrrrrrrshington, DC
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

Feofilakt wrote: View Post
indranee wrote: View Post
Feofilakt wrote: View Post

But that has no rational basis
of course it does.

Trek brings with it 40 years of philosophical (granted, pseudo-arty) depth. neither ID4, nor Armageddon do that.

Trek is Trek. by itself, it promises something more than wham bam thank you ma'am. neither of those movies do that.

what dkehler wants to know is what makes Trek better than those movies. nothing makes it better. everything makes it better to US.
Trek as a whole brings the philosophical depth, but not the movie. That is what I am referring to. Your love of this movie has an irrational basis in the sense that you are not viewing it in an objective way that fits into the spirit you stated (which was spot-on, btw), but in which the good foundation of Trek excuses the failings of the movie. That is not rational and is a lapse in logic.

Premise: John is a good man. He is good because he is caring and insightful. I like John because he is caring and insightful

John becomes abusive and ignorant

Conclusion: I like John because John is a good man?

See the lapse? The predicate good is contingent upon the predicates caring and insightful. Without the predicates caring and insightful we loose good, and the conclusion must be you DO NOT like John because he is NOT a good man. To attribute characteristics that an object was previously endowed with which it does not currently possess is illogical.

I think the core of the argument is that the predicates of the subject have changed in the perception of an unknown percentage of the community and to like an object for traits previously possessed is a lapse of logic.
of course I am not objective! that's my freakin' point!

I submit, though, that you aren't, either.

at least, judging from the tone of your post.
indranee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12 2009, 02:22 AM   #1499
Feofilakt
Lieutenant Commander
 
Feofilakt's Avatar
 
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

indranee wrote: View Post
Feofilakt wrote: View Post
indranee wrote: View Post

of course it does.

Trek brings with it 40 years of philosophical (granted, pseudo-arty) depth. neither ID4, nor Armageddon do that.

Trek is Trek. by itself, it promises something more than wham bam thank you ma'am. neither of those movies do that.

what dkehler wants to know is what makes Trek better than those movies. nothing makes it better. everything makes it better to US.
Trek as a whole brings the philosophical depth, but not the movie. That is what I am referring to. Your love of this movie has an irrational basis in the sense that you are not viewing it in an objective way that fits into the spirit you stated (which was spot-on, btw), but in which the good foundation of Trek excuses the failings of the movie. That is not rational and is a lapse in logic.

Premise: John is a good man. He is good because he is caring and insightful. I like John because he is caring and insightful

John becomes abusive and ignorant

Conclusion: I like John because John is a good man?

See the lapse? The predicate good is contingent upon the predicates caring and insightful. Without the predicates caring and insightful we loose good, and the conclusion must be you DO NOT like John because he is NOT a good man. To attribute characteristics that an object was previously endowed with which it does not currently possess is illogical.

I think the core of the argument is that the predicates of the subject have changed in the perception of an unknown percentage of the community and to like an object for traits previously possessed is a lapse of logic.
of course I am not objective! that's my freakin' point!

I submit, though, that you aren't, either.
Ah, what human is truly objective? We only work with what we are given, and the limitations of perception and thought are many. I do wish I could lose my desire to be as objective as humanly possible, however, it would make some aspects of life somewhat less bitter. But I digress...

You should let the good feeling this movie brings you sit for a while and really investigate it, however. All good movies are only good movies when given some degree of scrutiny.
Feofilakt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12 2009, 02:22 AM   #1500
indranee
Vice Admiral
 
indranee's Avatar
 
Location: Warrrrrrrrrshington, DC
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

Feofilakt wrote: View Post
jamestyler wrote: View Post
Feofilakt wrote: View Post
Trek as a whole brings the philosophical depth, but not the movie. That is what I am referring to. Your love of this movie has an irrational basis in the sense that you are not viewing it in an objective way that fits into the spirit you stated (which was spot-on, btw), but in which the good foundation of Trek excuses the failings of the movie. That is not rational and is a lapse in logic.
I'm curious... does this cover more than the person you're quoting? It just seems to be quite the attempt to be patronising, with some lazy writing causing some major plot holes.

But the performance was spot on.
Reason for favoring Trek over other popcorn action movies stated by Indranee: Trek, and by extension, Abrams Trek has a philosophical core those movies do not possess
My contention: Trek possesses said qualities, but the new movie does not. To attribute previous qualities to a present form which lacks them is a lapse in logic.
that's where you're wrong. just because YOU don't see said quality does not mean I do not either (or that doesn't exist). and as I pointed out, that's exactly your (in the plural, not just YOU) problem: lack of objectivity when it comes to THIS movie.

oh, and, I could've gotten angry at your said patronizing 'tude, dude, but I've been on this board too damned long.
indranee is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
grading & discussion, parallel star trek, vulcan

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.