Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by HaplessCrewman, Sep 24, 2013.
Trek is doing pretty fucking good. It's ahead of Iron Man 3 for God's sake!
Why must Abrams make Star Trek movies that no one likes?
What's really putrid is that the fanboys are insistent on perpetrating and re-stating the blatant lie that those who didn't think it was worth gushing over are somehow a small but vocal minority. They make up a very large portion if not half of the total amount of people who saw it. If you count those who just thought it was "meh" and nothing particularly special, that percentage rises even farther. It wasn't worth gushing over unless you simply aren't aware of writing standards, actually good films or are easily amused due to being unfit. "Good"? Yes. "Watchable"? Yes. "New-Age"? Definitely. "Greatest-ever or one of the greatest ever"? Only if you're uneducated in several key areas that would affect your ability to determine such a thing.
I have no idea what you're on about?
Shouldn't we be asking that the movies we pay to see be "good" and "watchable"?
Do you have data to support this assertion?
Can you provide a link to supporting data?
Because what this post really looks like is a swipe—"the fanboys are insistent on perpetrating and re-stating the blatant lie"; "unless you simply aren't aware of writing standards"; "Only if you're uneducated in several key areas"; etc.—at those who were able to enjoy the movie, and that's something you'll want to avoid.
Criticisms of the movie itself are fine; swipes at fans or fan groups with whom you may disagree about the movie are not fine. Please don't do that.
I seriously doubt you can support this 50%+ contention, since Rotten Tomatoes and other sites show 90%+ fresh rating, polls here show about the same thing and out of 23,000+ members on the board, it's a very small percentage of users who express their dislike for the BadRobot Trek movies.
As far as challenging the intelligence of anyone who found the movie enjoyable, that kinda works against argument if you need to insult the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you
The "I hated it, and I saw it FIVE TIMES to be sure I hated it" defense holds zero water.
Unless someone has a link that proves otherwise - Next!
That's a bit hypocritical complaining about fanboys who supposedly make up numbers while swiping at them for being uneducated, having poor standards and being easily amused "due to being unfit" (What does that even mean?)
Very, very insulting, and utterly sinks any argument you were trying to make.
Star Trek 2009 has a 95%approval rating on RT among critics, with an 89% audience approval rating. STID has an 87% approval rating among critics, with a 91% audience approval rating. Sorry, but a 50/50 split simply doesn't exist.
Awwww, that's cute! But.... from this very board:
A+ 135 20.03% A 153 22.70% A- 94 13.95% B+ 75 11.13% B 54 8.01% B- 23 3.41% C+ 35 5.19%
Better luck next time though!
I assume by "putrid" you mean to imply "morally corrupt or evil." Are you really suggesting that STiD "fanboys" are evil?
You claim these people are liars and offer no evidence of their indiscretions. In fact, you represent the truth with such inaccuracy that one could accuse you, you know, being a liar--or, at the very least, a hypocrite.
For one thing, the so-called "gushers" represent a very small portion of the fan base. The attacks on The Vocal Minority are neither exclusive nor imperative to them. Some partake; some don't. The chant emanates from all those (gushers and non gushers) who've grown weary of The Vocal Minority's bullshit.
And all those you've deemed victims have never been ridiculed or attacked and are certainly not considered by anyone as part of The Vocal Minority.
To what kind of writing standards do you refer? Some writing standards are used as a personal guideline. They are purely subjective and have no relevance to anything or anyone else. Other writing standards serve as a rulebook indicating the proper form and etiquette of writing. For example, one such rule might dictate or suggest a proper use of "further" and "farther."
I fail to see how either of these apply.
Please. Enlighten us.
One could, perhaps, but actually making such an accusation is generally considered poor form, and would be better eschewed.
Somewhere someone's future SAT vocabulary score is getting a boost.
Why do those bastard Trek Fans hate the writers?
I have never gotten an inkling that Orci & Kurtzman hate me, and that's all that matters.
The article is about as inaccurate as the rest of the articles that reference the Star Trek Vegas poll of the 100 or so that attended that one panel. As usual, they cherry pick and play up the negative responses while ignoring the fact that the poll they reference ha already been shown as not being how most Star Trek fans feel about STID. Most don't rate it near the top (like I do) - but most do seem to rate it squarely in the middle (6th or so.); so it's far from the worst of the franchise, etc.
Meh. It would be a valid defense against the kind of fan who goes ballistic over trivial minutiae: "Kirk would never part his hair that way! They've murdered Trek and are raping its corpse!"
When you're talking about more glaring things like "transwarp beaming" (which raise rather large questions like what exactly would you need starships for when you can teleport across interstellar distances) or hiding starships on the bottom of the ocean (which the creators obviously knew was a dumb call as they actually tried to lampshade it in the dialogue), it's more than just a picky minority who find fault with every little thing. As stuff like that mounts up you're eventually just really talking about junk cinema, pure and simple.
Which in other contexts wouldn't be that bad. If Into Darkness had been a Lost in Space movie, it would've been a triumph. The context does affect the reception.
Explain to me why showing a new technology based on a previously seen technology is wrong and why hiding a starship under an ocean is dumb.
If your new technology makes the basic premise of your whole setting and franchise -- adventuring in a starship -- completely redundant, it is probably a bad idea. (It doesn't help that it also completely breaks the internal consistency of depicting that technology in the timeframe one is supposedly "re-booting." But even that's a problem that pales in comparison.)
Um, because a starship has all of space to hide in? Where it's designed to be and wouldn't be discernible as anything other than a bright dot from below? Whereas it is not designed to be under the ocean? And actually the Enterprise never ever landed in other films because it was not designed to ever land, and would break apart on entering an atmosphere? How many more do would you like?
(I know the point of the hiding-under-the-ocean thing was to have occasion for the conflict between Kirk and Spock that gets resolved in the final act. But there's a term for having to contrive stupid behaviour on the part of your characters to generate such conflict... it is called Bad Writing.)
"Tomorrow is Yesterday". The Enterprise is identified as a UFO against blue sky.
It can withstand wormholes, nebulas, giant amoeba and other space anomalies, but would "break apart" just by entering atmosphere?
It is called Great Movie Blockbuster Writing.
When I was in New York, people tried to encourage me to use the subway trains, to get from place to place, but I much preferred to walk a different avenue each day, and check out all the sights and shops between my hotel and my destinations. I was on vacation; my time was my own.
Transwarp beaming, even if it became more predictable and safe, would not replace starships undertaking exploration and scientific research. It's about the journey, not the destination.
Separate names with a comma.