I stopped reading at: "...even the ship designed to function in the vacuum of space could handle the pressures underwater — which I’m 99% sure it can’t..." Which alone displays the writer's sheer lack of Trek knowledge. For starters, you may remember Insurrection hiding a village-sized holoship underwater on the Ba'ku planet.
That's basically calling everybody who disagrees with you shallow or worse. It's the equivalent of saying "only an idiot can like this movie." and it assumes that your point of view is the only valid one. But what you can ignore or not is entirely subjective.
I wonder how many flaws you picked up on yourself and how many of those flaws the internet told you to be outraged about? I loved the movie, I love the TV series it is based on. For some reason many think that they have to like one or the other.
I'll up the ante even more. Fiction has plot holes. Some stories may have less than others, but they all have them. Plot holes are an unavoidable part of the writing process.
No Ralfy, that's not what I asked. I asked you personally what you think the movie's flaws were. Don't tell me to go to some other website because that's evading my question. And don't use the excuse that you don't want to spoil people because there are spoiler tags you can use. Maybe if you took the time to actually read what I wrote instead of acting all high-and-mighty, you'd see that I wasn't calling ralfy an "idiot internet reviewer," I was calling the internet reviewer that ralfy was linking to on I09 an idiot.
Why do you stop there and not continue reading? Also, is the holoship the same as the Enterprise? And why go underwater? Why not stay in orbit? There are more flaws, by the way.
Not shallow, as some will look at plot only but not characterization. Keep in mind that movies are composed of various elements that are supposed to work together. Usually, some elements can make up for problems with others, such as a well-written story making up for poor special effects, but it's very hard to do it the other way around as movies are essentially stories, which means the theme, characterization, and plot should be developed properly. The problem for this movie are the plot holes, which in turn leads to some problems with characterization, and the special effects cannot make up for them. Keep in mind that that subjectivity is in turn based on experience, e.g., the quantity and quality of movies you've seen previously, common sense, etc.
I noticed several while watching the movie (e.g., why not use a timer?, "cold" fusion, underwater?, doing all that just to get your crewmates?), noted more right after when I got irritated by some of the scenes, and was pleasantly surprised by more after reading reviews (why didn't I get that?). So much for .
I am not going to post spoilers in this thread because there's already a thread dedicated to that. I did not resort to name-calling. I didn't say anything about you calling me an idiot. What I wrote is that you acknowledged that there are flaws in the movie, and that's what some "Internet" reviewers are saying.
And did you post your own opinions there, or just more links to other people's opinions? You're confused. I was referring to mos6507's post toward me, not you. His facts were wrong.
Why are those flaws ? Because you can't find a reason ? You have no idea if that's the case here. All you know is that I disagree with you, and enjoyed the movie. For the record I think there's plenty of characterisation for the leads. Don't try to play with definitions. "Subjective" means it's personal, individual, unique to each human, distinct. It means no two people will agree. And don't mention "common sense" to me. Common sense is not all that common, and rarely actually makes sense except to the person using it.
So you really think your favourite Trek episode or movie would stand up to that kind of OCD scrutiny? Because if you do you're kidding yourself. I imagine you must hate Wrath of Khan for similar reasons you do Into Darkness?
Complaining about the use of cold fusion in fucking science fiction is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've read against STiD. And that says a lot.
He isn't in the Clone Wars TV show, but becomes distressed and agitated after being denied the rank of Jedi Master, and also because of the regulations against personal entanglements and the death of his mom. That would fuck me up but good-in fact, it would fuck anybody up but good. Being a douche? More like a tragic hero who became a villain when things got out of control.