Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by Agent Richard07, Apr 18, 2013.
Warning for trolling. Comments to PM.
Err, the "Guy who just quoted Shakespeare and didn't have an original thought of his own" was Chang.
I think Khan pretty much stuck to Melville and Dickens.
Either way, my argument was (again) to point out the hypocrisy people display when they suggest, if the movie they like does something, it's good. But when the movie they don't like does the exact same thing, it's bad.
I call it the 'Trekkie Paradox'!
I recognize that inconsistency have always been a feature of stories. The ancient Greeks and Roman referred to continuity errors in Homer's works as Homeric nods. The issue I have with this story is not with the technology nor the visuals. I have an issue with narrative logic, character motivations, and world building.
And, I do feel that people who do have issues with this film are being attacked by those who like the film. I have seen many disparaging comments lobbed by the latter toward the former. I bear no hatred toward JJ Abrams nor those who worked with him. I think some of the blame for lower financial returns can be attributed to a marketing ploy conceived by him that backfired.
I wish JJ Abrams luck on the next Star Wars film. I hope that, for the next Star Trek film, that we will have a writer or a team of writers that can write a story that has a strong narrative logic. I don't feel it should be my job as a viewer to ask the questions that should have been asked by the writers. Also, I don't feel it should be my job as a viewer to point out flaws that should have been spotted by the writers. For instance, the distance from the Earth to the Moon. A writer should insure that real world facts are accurate, which can be done by doing a Google check.
Maybe proper names need to get worked into your writing a bit more, cuz that that doesn't read at all clearly.
I'm no fan of TUC, but I thought Chang had some interesting colors early on ... the way he tweaks Kirk with the 'willing to give up Starfleet?' bit doesn't owe anything to anyone but the living writers and performer.
I think TUC's overuse of the quotes is in part due to not having enough time to stand back and look at the shooting draft objectively. They were having meltdowns during preproduction as the feature got cancelled and uncancelled, and the script needed another pass, for this and for the whole murder mystery aspect. Then they should have caught it again -- either during dailies or at the rough cut -- and at that point leaving all that 'northern star' crap in was just bad judgement after bad judgement.
"I don't like this storyline," or "this character doesn't make any sense," are fair criticisms of any movie. I don't mind that someone ended up not liking the new movie. It happens, no one person's opinion will be exactly the same as another. The differences can produce meaningful dialogue. It's common, for example, for someone to not like an aspect of a movie because they didn't understand it, or didn't notice the context. That's where discussing the merits of that viewpoint comes in. One can say, "You must have missed the part where this is explained here...," and if the other person is willing to listen, then they can respond in kind with either an affirmative, or that they still do not enjoy the film. That's fine.
That's something to which I look forward, such discussions. The problem is this:
"J.J. Abrams spit in the face of the fandom," "Roddenberry would be ashamed of this so called 'Star Trek'," "All the people who watch this movie want are flashy pictures and zero plot," "It's an abomination! I hope it fails and the actors never work again!" "No real Star Trek fan would see this movie," or the ever popular, "It's not Star Trek. It's an action movie for people who don't like to think."
That's when you go from criticizing a film, to zealously railing against a film. That is frustrating, because it obscures conversation. It eschews reasonable discussion in favor of hyperbole. I see enough of it in the political landscape. I don't need to see it when discussing a new Star Trek movie.
An unfortunate side-effect of people being a bit emotionally-involved in their favourite franchise. Hopefully it's not mean-spirited.
I can't say that I'm too pleased with motion pictures in the last 12 years or so. There are tons of good movies, but there seems to be an annoying focus on all-out action and too little on continuity and consistency.
That said, it may just be the fact that I grew up in a different decade.
Aww, c'mon. That's one of my favorite parts of the movie!
Because they set unrealistic expectations.
I agree. Those two moments consistently get the biggest laughs in the theatre. I also like the idea that both Kirk and Spock have this "promise" if you will that they will become the most important person in each others' life, but frustratingly it's not quite happening, and after the scene in Pike's office, seems futher away than ever. I imagine every now and again Kirk throws the ball to see if Spock catches it and throws it back (no pitcher/catcher jokes please, I am trying, badly, to make a point )
This first seemed very much like one of those moments, but the ball just hit Spock in the chest and landed with a thunk on the ground. LOL. It was such a cute scene and the two of them played it so well. It was also a moment where I felt the whole audience, both old fans and new, really GOT it.
It reminded me of McCoy's hilarious outfit in TMP.. the whole seen was great!
My favourite ST movie is still ST:TMP, but closely followed by ST (2009) and now by STiD.
In 1980, I was told if I'd only known TOS like other fans already did, I'd realize how awful TMP was. Still not seeing it. In 2009, I was told that it would be impossible for a fan of TMP to like ST (2009). So sue me. TMP and ST (2009) were both amazingly immersive cinema experiences.
Well TMP is my least favorite movie but I'm going to try try try again to like it because it irks me greatly that I would ever rate NEM and INS above a TOS film.
Yes! THAT'S what was running around in the back of my head! I was thinking "where have I seen this before?!"
I've never really understood people who try to tell you that you can't like a movie or television show because it doesn't fit their worldview.
I'm glad I was so hungry to see it that I read the novelization first.
You know that's not tempting Therin, even with the promise of free sex for everybody Roddenberry slipped in there.
Have you read it?
No and I'm not likely to do so in a hurry. If I found a movie like watching paint dry I'm not exactly falling over myself to read the novelization.
The chapters are very short and fast moving! And there are lots of fun little tidbits that aren't in the movie.
The novelization is quite interesting. Lots of sexual references.
Roddenberry had some rather open ideas about sex and interaction between the sexes. That alone makes the novel an interesting read. I've probably read it a dozen times by now.
Separate names with a comma.