The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by Agent Richard07, Apr 30, 2009.

?

Grade the movie...

  1. Excellent

    707 vote(s)
    62.7%
  2. Above Average

    213 vote(s)
    18.9%
  3. Average

    84 vote(s)
    7.5%
  4. Below Average

    46 vote(s)
    4.1%
  5. Poor

    77 vote(s)
    6.8%
  1. jamestyler

    jamestyler Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    After reading the whole thing... I couldn't help but notice the opening which makes it sound like you didn't like the film because it was entertaining.

    I think thats what my problem is with a few poster on this board. The attitude of "Oh my GOD! It's entertaining, how dare they!" as if nothing that came before it was, y'know... good.
     
  2. RAnthony

    RAnthony Lieutenant Junior Grade Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Location:
    Texas
    That's the argument, eh?

    For the record, I've found every Trek film entertaining on some level. It's one reason I've been a Trek fan for 42 years. Entertainment isn't that hard to come by.

    But... It's not the be all and end all measurement for what makes something 'good trek' or even star trek at all.

    So, no, that isn't the crux of my argument.

    -RAnthony
     
  3. Coloratura

    Coloratura Snuggle Princess Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    Star Trek is many things to many people, but for Paramount, above all, it must be entertaining, and it must bring a profit. In that, this movie has succeeded. In all else, that is up to each person.

    J.
     
  4. Ovation

    Ovation Vice Admiral Admiral

    From your own link:
    No, nothing insulting there. Not at all. :rolleyes: You're merely masking your insults in less scathing vocabulary than some others.

    And you did not qualify the statement "It's just not Star Trek". You asserted it and listed why it isn't. That is NOT a qualified statement. A qualified statement would be, "I don't think it follows in the tradition of..." or "to me, it lacks significant qualities about Star Trek that I find indispensable for it to be good Star Trek..." or something like that.

    You do NOT get to define "Star Trek" for anyone else. You simply don't.
     
  5. archeryguy1701

    archeryguy1701 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Location:
    Cheyenne, WY
    RAnthony, I think you're missing the point that some people are trying to make. You weren't shut down for making any sort of radical post. You were seemingly shut down because you felt you needed your own personal review/ discussion thread. You're not the first thread to be shut down for that, and probably won't be the last. There's only 3 moderators running this place, and they already have to keep an eye on a billion threads that have been started since last Thursday. Imagine how much harder their work is going to have to be if they are forced to leave open every additional review thread that comes up, particularly ones that get people worked up. Just chill, go with the flow, and let the mods do their thing.
     
  6. Gep Malakai

    Gep Malakai Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Digital matte painting, but likely a matte painting nonetheless, combining 3D and 2D elements. They still use those these days.

    And the blackpoint on the digital parts of that image is messed up. All the "pure" blacks where no detail is visible are actually a very, very dark grey. That's why it looks like it's a billboard or back-projection screen behind Kirk. (With all the great tools effects artists have, it escapes me why mismatching the black levels in FX plates is a frequently seen problem.)
     
  7. jamestyler

    jamestyler Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    I've said in this thread alone more than once the film isn't for anyone, even gave a nod of respect to one or two posters for their opinion. But your view does say it's entertaining but thats wrong because they've taken out something you find key to the old Trek and made it hollow.

    I'm not saying this to cause an argument or bash you - I don't care whether you like the film or not, I'm not the type to impose my taste on anyone, it's just... if ST is something more than entertainment to you - explaining that and how the film failed to represent that feeling would make your opinion clearer to me, and perhaps others.
     
  8. RAnthony

    RAnthony Lieutenant Junior Grade Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Location:
    Texas
    I can't control what any individual finds insulting. As your argument states, I can only define what I find insulting. An ad hominem attack, a personal attack, is something that can clearly be defined.

    The use of the word you, as in "You do NOT get to define "Star Trek" for anyone else. You simply don't. " can be construed as a personal attack, because it is addressed to me personally. Just FYI.

    If you want to self identify as someone promoting the use of bubblegum, that is outside of my abilities to control. :lol:

    The objections to my quantification are duly noted. They are in error, but noted. I listed, in the spoiler section, my objections which are a qualification as to why abramstrek is not trek.

    -RAnthony
     
  9. RAnthony

    RAnthony Lieutenant Junior Grade Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Location:
    Texas
    ...and if I had been given a place to have that discussion, I would have done so...

    -RAnthony
     
  10. RAnthony

    RAnthony Lieutenant Junior Grade Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Location:
    Texas
    I think it goes without saying that Paramount thinks this is the best Trek ever created, including being better than the first one. After all, it has made them more money in a very short time than most of the other films or series have ever made.

    But as my arguments about the relative success of Serenity adequately point out, there's more to success than strict financials might reveal.

    ...and I don't really care about anyone's opinion but my own (especially not Paramount's) other than the discussion points that might be revealed in them.

    It is, after all, about understanding.

    -RAnthony
     
  11. Ovation

    Ovation Vice Admiral Admiral

    Now you're being obtuse. Surely you are not suggesting that insults cannot be implied through the juxtaposition of words that, while in and of themselves are not offensive, taken as a whole are readily apparent as insulting.

    It is not an attack, it is a statement of fact.

    A perfect example of an implied insult.

    TO YOU. That's the missing qualifier. Your entire rant is attempting to assert that it is not Trek. Full stop. You dismiss the notion that it could be considered "real Trek" by anyone else with the structure of your statements and, by implication, call into question the validity of anyone who does consider it "real Trek" to be a "real fan". That is arrogant presumption and it is extremely irksome. Again, YOU don't get to decide for OTHERS what is "Trek" or not. You don't own it.
     
  12. RAnthony

    RAnthony Lieutenant Junior Grade Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Location:
    Texas
    Uhmmm....

    No. No, there are no threads with titles that I find address the true nature of the problem. There are no arguments being advanced that enumerate the philosophical problems with this film in relation to established canon (at least that I've seen) which necessitate an ending of Trek fandom as it once was.

    If there is, then why was my post moved to a locked thread? Nope, I will not sit silently by and allow myself to be censored. Kick me off the board if you want me to be quiet.

    -RAnthony
     
  13. jamestyler

    jamestyler Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    I was thinking more in the medium of the blog. To be honest, the threads have came and gone so quickly here in such a short space of time I haven't even seen yours.

    But I think your point would be clearer if you gave that feeling of what Trek means to you, and linking that to how the film never measured up to start with. It would help misunderstandings and perhaps make it seem less like one of the many generic bashings the films taken.
     
  14. RAnthony

    RAnthony Lieutenant Junior Grade Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Location:
    Texas
    Paramount owns it, and they don't get to define it for me, either. Strange, but most of the arguments amount to property rights defining what is or isn't Trek; and yet, like the Disney company and Walt's creations (which they manhandle) Paramount has not honestly created anything successful with Star Trek. What they have managed to do is get in the way of successful storytelling over the years (I suspect even in this film this is true) while the true author was still alive, and have bastardized (and yes, that is the word I mean to use) what was Trek to create this thing currently in theaters today. For all I know, J.J. Abrams should be credited for doing the best he could with the materials he was provided.

    What I do know is that by any definition I care to use, it's not Star Trek.

    ...and it goes without saying that my opinion speaks for no one but me. I do not need to labor under the burden of continuously justifying my opinions as only my own. I leave that to the CYA obsessed soulless corporations that wouldn't know a good story idea even if it was repeatedly bashed into their collective foreheads.

    So, don't hold your breath about my presentation style. It ain't changin'.

    -RAnthony
     
  15. archeryguy1701

    archeryguy1701 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Location:
    Cheyenne, WY
    :guffaw:
    Surely you can't be serious! The simply use of the word "you" doesn't contrue a personal attack, particular in the cited context!

    As for your response to my post... First, your "cenosored" post didn't cover any of the things you mentioned.... what was it you said you wanted to discuss?
    The post that got merged with the closed one, had nothing to do with any of the above. It was a review. And, if it wasn't, you certainly wrote it and it certainly read very review-like. Should it probably have been merged with this thread and not the other one? Probably. But your thread/ post certainly isn't the philisophical discussion you're trying to make it out to be.
    Second, don't pull that censoring crap. A)There's much more effective ways to censor you that to stick your posts in a closed thread. B) Are you really basing those accusation on that fact that a single thread of yours disappeared? I've had a couple threads locked on me as well. Should I be feeling censored? :(
     
  16. TheMurph

    TheMurph Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Location:
    TN
    "Get tae..."

    There are still Vulcans left and what becomes of them now is excellent source material for the next movie. I applaud JJ for doing something bold and sticking with it and not using the reset button (yet).

    The lack of a detailed explanation for the red matter is fine by me, not everything needs to be spelled out in convoluted detail. And Mr. Spock having trouble restraining his emotions? Well if we won't to go canonistic I seem to recall a smiling and shouting Spock in TOS. It seems natural to me for a person with conflicting heritage to have moments where control fails.

    Well according to Uhura's abilities she was suppposed to be on the Enterprise anyways and Spock took her off so that there would be no conflict. She corrected that problem. As for their relationship, that didn't really come out into the open until they had more important things going on.

    Well nepotism is something that goes on strong in today's military, talk about realistic. :lol: It may have been the same in TOS, we don't know, never spoken on screen before (to my knowledge) so first time it comes up it's canon.

    The second half of your paragraph is downright silly. I thought the com conversation was done well considering that a father was giving up his life to save his crew and wife and child. What did you want? The emotional impact of George's death is lost because it supposedly makes fathers irrelevant because Jimmy succeeds despite George not being there? Seriously?

    Yep, no such thing as a running gag in Star Trek. True Trek has never lowered itself to that level. (Hmm except maybe every single show and movie except maybe TMP)

    And of course no such thing as a convenient item or placement of said item has occured in any Star Trek before either. I've never seen a contrived moment of Trek in my life. :borg:

    What I find in the film is an enjoyable movie that washes the stench of Nemesis from my memory and captures the spirit of Star Trek once more.

    Good for them, they are making a profit on a product that I and many others enjoyed greatly and with these great profits they have breathed new life into a franchise that was becoming stagnant and on life support.

    Are you happy now?
     
  17. Jim Steele

    Jim Steele Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    Location:
    Croydon
    I'm not going to get into an argument about the film (I've already made my (mixed) feelings clear, can't be arsed doing it again), but I have to point out here that he doesn't need to qualify that HIS opinion is HIS opinion. That's implicit. HE said it.

    Do you really need an IMHO disclaimer after ever assertion?
     
  18. Bob The Skutter

    Bob The Skutter Complete Arse Cleft Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Location:
    This island Earth
    You can't expect people to infer opinions from what people say. Are you crazy?
     
  19. Jim Steele

    Jim Steele Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    Location:
    Croydon
    SEAN BEAN

    Nah, I guess I'm asking a little too much of people there...
     
  20. Ovation

    Ovation Vice Admiral Admiral

    No. However, there is a small coterie of "dissenters" that not only makes declarative statements without any disclaimer ("This just isn't Trek" or "This ain't Star Trek" or some variation), they go on to explicitly or implicitly state that anyone who doesn't share their view is not a "real fan" and is some sort of imbecile to boot. Such self-appointed "guardians of real Trek" annoy the shit out of me because they presume to decide for others something that is not theirs to decide. RAnthony is among that coterie. So if I have time to kill, I'll call him (or anyone else who offers the same drivel) on their bullshit. Beyond that, he's essentially stated that he plans to be deliberately obnoxious until he gets what he wants and that's one more reason to single out the bullshit.

    I've read your objections--I don't share all of them but I have not challenged them because you, unlike him and a few others, don't go around stating or implying that those who don't agree with you are idiots and not "real fans". That's the difference.