The failure of Watchmen should be a lesson..

[ST-One]

That's why I am glad that J.J Abrams took the other route and made Star Trek much more accessible to the average movie goer.

Some, like myself, would argue that that is "dumbing it down."

And that, in my opinion, is an arrogant assumption.

 

[Rii]

What about maintaining the integrity of the original material? There's a huge difference between that and pandering, which I would interpret as kow-towing to fanboy delusions and BBS postings. Time travel seems to be J.J. Abrams' answer to everything lately - it's become a cliché for people who don't really understand science fiction, a trope they seem to believe is the universal standard to explain everything else they can't achieve through good, honest storytelling.

Sisko: “James T. Kirk?”
Agent #1: “The one and only.”
Agent #2: “17 separate temporal violations, the biggest file on record.”
Agent #1: “The man was a menace.”

 

[trevanian]

That's why I am glad that J.J Abrams took the other route and made Star Trek much more accessible to the average movie goer.

Some, like myself, would argue that that is "dumbing it down."

And that, in my opinion, is an arrogant assumption.

Is there a limit on the number of times you're going to use the words 'arrogant assumption' in your posts on the subject of this movie, or should I just assume you have a macro set that just keys those words in to save you time whenever you try to dismiss legitimate speculation?

 

[ST-One]

Some, like myself, would argue that that is "dumbing it down."

And that, in my opinion, is an arrogant assumption.

Is there a limit on the number of times you're going to use the words 'arrogant assumption' in your posts on the subject of this movie, or should I just assume you have a macro set that just keys those words in to save you time whenever you try to dismiss legitimate speculation?

Please point me to the 'legitimate speculation'-part in Ptrop's 'dumbing it down' as a response to StarTrek1701's view that Abrams and Co (presumably) made Star Trek more accessible to the average (general) movie goer.

 

[RobertScorpio]

That, and it wasn't that well done.

We definitely saw different movies...

You sure did...I am with the OP. I saw Watchmen last week with a very big crowd of....5 people. Thats it. Five fricking people at 5pm at night. No excuse for a movie that had just come out the friday before..

The movie was just a razzle dazzle piece of pooo and totally proved to me, once again, that this kind of movie making just doesn't add up to $$$...Sin City flopped, and it even had an allstar cast....Spirt last year flopped...These movies just don't do good...

I just hope this is the end of these so called 'graphic novel' comic book movie adaptations...DC/WB should concentrate their efforts on a comic-book that would actually sell MOVIE tickets....like GREEN LANTERN!!

Rob

 

[Neopeius]

The movie was just a razzle dazzle piece of pooo

I wouldn't go *that* far. But it had some serious flaws.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

And that, in my opinion, is an arrogant assumption.

Is there a limit on the number of times you're going to use the words 'arrogant assumption' in your posts on the subject of this movie, or should I just assume you have a macro set that just keys those words in to save you time whenever you try to dismiss legitimate speculation?

Please point me to the 'legitimate speculation'-part in Ptrop's 'dumbing it down' as a response to StarTrek1701's view that Abrams and Co (presumably) made Star Trek more accessible to the average (general) movie goer.

"Arrogant" and "assumption" generally don't go together anyway.

"Arrogant" is an objective descriptive term. It describes the person being described, directly.

"Assumption," BY DEFINITION, isn't about the person being described as having made the assumption, though.

There are "ill-informed" assumptions. There are mistaken assumptions. There are correct assumptions. But, since you almost never make assumptions about yourself... it's nearly impossible for an assumption to be "arrogant."

If you think he's making assumptions which are derogatory... then they are not "arrogant" assumptions, they are DEROGATORY assumptions.

I, personally, think PTrope's position is quite reasonable. Of course, you won't be surprised to hear that, I'm sure. I find nothing either "arrogant" NOR "derogatory" about his perspective, though it seems you do think he's somehow being "derogatory" towards other people by virtue of him, personally, not LIKING what he's being given, and having the audacity to actually say so.

His criticisms, on this particular topic, are much as my own are. We both find the claims that "the original design would never work" to be NONSENSICAL on every level. There is no evidence of any kind to support such a claim, and plenty of logical arguments which cast at least SOME doubt on the claim.

The only way to find out if "the original design would work" would be to actually put it to the test. Now... that hasn't been done on the "big screen" but it HAS been done on the small screen a couple of times in recent years (for TOS-R and for "In A Mirror Darkly"). And in both of those cases, it's been very well-received.

So, there's a dearth of evidence either way, but the evidence which IS available tends to disprove the "it would never work" argument. And there is ZERO actual evidence in the opposite direction. There is OPINION, sure... purely individual and anecdotal in nature... but no evidence.

Oh, and by the way, ST-One... would you PLEASE take the "gay porn clip" avatar off? I don't need to look at some guy with nothing but a jockstrap on, ready to be buggered... and I think that's inappropriate for an "all ages" forum, isn't it? You want to have something like that, go to the "access-restricted, gay porn" websites. It's even more obnoxious than the old avatar you had, which had the "fuck you" gesture in it. Try having an avatar which is not designed to offend and shock, for once... please?

 

[ST-One]

Is there a limit on the number of times you're going to use the words 'arrogant assumption' in your posts on the subject of this movie, or should I just assume you have a macro set that just keys those words in to save you time whenever you try to dismiss legitimate speculation?

Please point me to the 'legitimate speculation'-part in Ptrop's 'dumbing it down' as a response to StarTrek1701's view that Abrams and Co (presumably) made Star Trek more accessible to the average (general) movie goer.

"Arrogant" and "assumption" generally don't go together anyway.

"Arrogant" is an objective descriptive term. It describes the person being described, directly.

"Assumption," BY DEFINITION, isn't about the person being described as having made the assumption, though.

There are "ill-informed" assumptions. There are mistaken assumptions. There are correct assumptions. But, since you almost never make assumptions about yourself... it's nearly impossible for an assumption to be "arrogant."

If you think he's making assumptions which are derogatory... then they are not "arrogant" assumptions, they are DEROGATORY assumptions.

I, personally, think PTrope's position is quite reasonable. Of course, you won't be surprised to hear that, I'm sure. I find nothing either "arrogant" NOR "derogatory" about his perspective, though it seems you do think he's somehow being "derogatory" towards other people by virtue of him, personally, not LIKING what he's being given, and having the audacity to actually say so.

His criticisms, on this particular topic, are much as my own are. We both find the claims that "the original design would never work" to be NONSENSICAL on every level. There is no evidence of any kind to support such a claim, and plenty of logical arguments which cast at least SOME doubt on the claim.

The only way to find out if "the original design would work" would be to actually put it to the test. Now... that hasn't been done on the "big screen" but it HAS been done on the small screen a couple of times in recent years (for TOS-R and for "In A Mirror Darkly"). And in both of those cases, it's been very well-received.

So, there's a dearth of evidence either way, but the evidence which IS available tends to disprove the "it would never work" argument. And there is ZERO actual evidence in the opposite direction. There is OPINION, sure... purely individual and anecdotal in nature... but no evidence.

Oh, and by the way, ST-One... would you PLEASE take the "gay porn clip" avatar off? I don't need to look at some guy with nothing but a jockstrap on, ready to be buggered... and I think that's inappropriate for an "all ages" forum, isn't it? You want to have something like that, go to the "access-restricted, gay porn" websites. It's even more obnoxious than the old avatar you had, which had the "fuck you" gesture in it. Try having an avatar which is not designed to offend and shock, for once... please?

Someone not to long ago - a week or two maybe - told me how you once told him how offensive you found the Avatar he had at that time... it's a common theme with you, isn't it? Just like Bible-long post that usually tell the same thing over and over again.

I change my Avatar if you remove yours.

 

[RobertScorpio]

The movie was just a razzle dazzle piece of pooo

I wouldn't go *that* far. But it had some serious flaws.

Okay...I'll say it just didn't float my boat. I never have been a fan of 'anti-heros" and this dreadfullly dark movie made even hate them more. And since it will go down as a flop, I just wish DC would spend more time on a UPLIFTING movie like...roll the drums...GREEN LANTERN!!!

Rob

 

[richpit]

I went into "Watchmen" knowing nothing about it and fully expecting to hate it. I loved it. So much so that I immediately went to buy the graphic novel so I could read it. (I'm not a "graphic novel" type of guy, mind you).

I'm amazed at how they followed the book: in dialog, frame composition and frame-by-frame 'action'.

I'm sad that it's dropped so much, but I agree that it will end up being a success after all is said and done...DVD sales, overseas (to me) receipts, etc.

 

[controlfreak]

There is nothing offensive about ST-1's avatar. The constant sniping back and forth is, however, getting kind of old, n'est-ce pas?

I've seen Watchmen twice and I've read the comic book. They're both quite good. I don't see the film as a failure. It made money. It will make more when it comes out on Blu-Ray. Star Trek has broader appeal than Watchmen. I don't see how Watchmen's success or failure has any bearing on the new Star Trek film. That point hasn't really been proven on either side.

 

[Rii]

I second the petition for ST-One to remove his avatar, on the grounds that his previous avatar was more awesomer and contained a higher density of win.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Please point me to the 'legitimate speculation'-part in Ptrop's 'dumbing it down' as a response to StarTrek1701's view that Abrams and Co (presumably) made Star Trek more accessible to the average (general) movie goer.

"Arrogant" and "assumption" generally don't go together anyway.

"Arrogant" is an objective descriptive term. It describes the person being described, directly.

"Assumption," BY DEFINITION, isn't about the person being described as having made the assumption, though.

There are "ill-informed" assumptions. There are mistaken assumptions. There are correct assumptions. But, since you almost never make assumptions about yourself... it's nearly impossible for an assumption to be "arrogant."

If you think he's making assumptions which are derogatory... then they are not "arrogant" assumptions, they are DEROGATORY assumptions.

I, personally, think PTrope's position is quite reasonable. Of course, you won't be surprised to hear that, I'm sure. I find nothing either "arrogant" NOR "derogatory" about his perspective, though it seems you do think he's somehow being "derogatory" towards other people by virtue of him, personally, not LIKING what he's being given, and having the audacity to actually say so.

His criticisms, on this particular topic, are much as my own are. We both find the claims that "the original design would never work" to be NONSENSICAL on every level. There is no evidence of any kind to support such a claim, and plenty of logical arguments which cast at least SOME doubt on the claim.

The only way to find out if "the original design would work" would be to actually put it to the test. Now... that hasn't been done on the "big screen" but it HAS been done on the small screen a couple of times in recent years (for TOS-R and for "In A Mirror Darkly"). And in both of those cases, it's been very well-received.

So, there's a dearth of evidence either way, but the evidence which IS available tends to disprove the "it would never work" argument. And there is ZERO actual evidence in the opposite direction. There is OPINION, sure... purely individual and anecdotal in nature... but no evidence.

Oh, and by the way, ST-One... would you PLEASE take the "gay porn clip" avatar off? I don't need to look at some guy with nothing but a jockstrap on, ready to be buggered... and I think that's inappropriate for an "all ages" forum, isn't it? You want to have something like that, go to the "access-restricted, gay porn" websites. It's even more obnoxious than the old avatar you had, which had the "fuck you" gesture in it. Try having an avatar which is not designed to offend and shock, for once... please?

Someone not to long ago - a week or two maybe - told me how you once told him how offensive you found the Avatar he had at that time... it's a common theme with you, isn't it? Just like Bible-long post that usually tell the same thing over and over again.

I change my Avatar if you remove yours.

Who's this "someone?" Just curious... if you're going to bring someone else into the conversation, shouldn't that person be named? FYI, the only avatars which are offensive, on here, are ones that are specifically designed to be offensive. And I haven't had ANY comment about anyone's avatar, on here (except for yours) within memory. So, I think you're lying about that. The only alternative is that someone else lied about it to you, "a week ago," without my knowledge... presumably having a time-machine in order to know when to tell it to you.

You've had two avatars which were designed to be offensive. This is supposed to be an "open forum" where kids, as well as adults, can read and post. Basic courtesy and respect for others would mean that you'd never put obscene gestures, obscene language, or obscene imagery into something which can be seen by anyone (including kids) who come into the forums.

And... fyi... it doesn't escape me that the only response you had to my argument was to pretend that it wasn't worth commenting... the "rolleyes" bit. I know you can read English perfectly well... so that's no excuse. My argument was an actual ARGUMENT... that is, logical statements supporting a position. You failed to respond in kind... which, I think it's clear, proves that you have no cogent argument to make in reply.

 

[Ptrope]

What about maintaining the integrity of the original material? There's a huge difference between that and pandering, which I would interpret as kow-towing to fanboy delusions and BBS postings. Time travel seems to be J.J. Abrams' answer to everything lately - it's become a cliché for people who don't really understand science fiction, a trope they seem to believe is the universal standard to explain everything else they can't achieve through good, honest storytelling.

Sisko: “James T. Kirk?”
Agent #1: “The one and only.”
Agent #2: “17 separate temporal violations, the biggest file on record.”
Agent #1: “The man was a menace.”

Hey, let's not forget those agents' names: Dulmur and Lucsly (something of scrambled versions of "Mulder" and "Scully," of course ).

From what we can see of the new film, so far, it seems Kirk pretty much is a temporal violation. I leave it to General Motors to determine whether he's a menace .

 

[ST-One]

"Arrogant" and "assumption" generally don't go together anyway.

"Arrogant" is an objective descriptive term. It describes the person being described, directly.

"Assumption," BY DEFINITION, isn't about the person being described as having made the assumption, though.

There are "ill-informed" assumptions. There are mistaken assumptions. There are correct assumptions. But, since you almost never make assumptions about yourself... it's nearly impossible for an assumption to be "arrogant."

If you think he's making assumptions which are derogatory... then they are not "arrogant" assumptions, they are DEROGATORY assumptions.

I, personally, think PTrope's position is quite reasonable. Of course, you won't be surprised to hear that, I'm sure. I find nothing either "arrogant" NOR "derogatory" about his perspective, though it seems you do think he's somehow being "derogatory" towards other people by virtue of him, personally, not LIKING what he's being given, and having the audacity to actually say so.

His criticisms, on this particular topic, are much as my own are. We both find the claims that "the original design would never work" to be NONSENSICAL on every level. There is no evidence of any kind to support such a claim, and plenty of logical arguments which cast at least SOME doubt on the claim.

The only way to find out if "the original design would work" would be to actually put it to the test. Now... that hasn't been done on the "big screen" but it HAS been done on the small screen a couple of times in recent years (for TOS-R and for "In A Mirror Darkly"). And in both of those cases, it's been very well-received.

So, there's a dearth of evidence either way, but the evidence which IS available tends to disprove the "it would never work" argument. And there is ZERO actual evidence in the opposite direction. There is OPINION, sure... purely individual and anecdotal in nature... but no evidence.

Oh, and by the way, ST-One... would you PLEASE take the "gay porn clip" avatar off? I don't need to look at some guy with nothing but a jockstrap on, ready to be buggered... and I think that's inappropriate for an "all ages" forum, isn't it? You want to have something like that, go to the "access-restricted, gay porn" websites. It's even more obnoxious than the old avatar you had, which had the "fuck you" gesture in it. Try having an avatar which is not designed to offend and shock, for once... please?

Someone not to long ago - a week or two maybe - told me how you once told him how offensive you found the Avatar he had at that time... it's a common theme with you, isn't it? Just like Bible-long post that usually tell the same thing over and over again.

I change my Avatar if you remove yours.

Who's this "someone?" Just curious... if you're going to bring someone else into the conversation, shouldn't that person be named? FYI, the only avatars which are offensive, on here, are ones that are specifically designed to be offensive. And I haven't had ANY comment about anyone's avatar, on here (except for yours) within memory. So, I think you're lying about that. The only alternative is that someone else lied about it to you, "a week ago," without my knowledge... presumably having a time-machine in order to know when to tell it to you.

You've had two avatars which were designed to be offensive. This is supposed to be an "open forum" where kids, as well as adults, can read and post. Basic courtesy and respect for others would mean that you'd never put obscene gestures, obscene language, or obscene imagery into something which can be seen by anyone (including kids) who come into the forums.

Will you be quiet?
Who died and made you arbiter of what is offensive or respectful or courteous anyway.
I use that avatar since the beginning of this year and you are the only person to raise a stink about it.

And... fyi... it doesn't escape me that the only response you had to my argument was to pretend that it wasn't worth commenting... the "rolleyes" bit. I know you can read English perfectly well... so that's no excuse. My argument was an actual ARGUMENT... that is, logical statements supporting a position. You failed to respond in kind... which, I think it's clear, proves that you have no cogent argument to make in reply.

 

[miraclefan]

^If I knew there was going to be a ''fight'' between you two, I woulda brought popcorn!

 

[Warped9]

...that pandering to the core base of a certain franchise is not the way to go. Zack Snyder did everything possible to keep Watchmen the movie true to Watchmen the comics. End result - a less than stellar showing, with an even lesser time staying in the public consciousness. 300 made Gerard Butler and Lena Headey household names. Don't think the same can be said of Jeffrey Dean Morgan or Billy Crudup. The movie didn't even have a recognizable catchphrase (like 300 did with "This. Is. SPARTA!!"). Had Snyder caved to the studio's voice and made Watchmen more contemporary, it might have had a better chance at the box office. The audience literally had nothing to relate to!

Now contrary to popular belief, stories don't have to be "dumbed down" for the average movie goer to enjoy. The major box office of The Dark Knight proved that. However, it is the average movie goer that contributes to the major hauling and box office success of a particular movie. If the average moviegoer does not enjoy it, and in turn not bring repeated business, the movie will fade away. Old fans means squat, it is the new fans that have to be created for the continuing existence of a franchise.

That's why I am glad that J.J Abrams took the other route and made Star Trek much more accessible to the average movie goer. He didn't make it "just for the fans". If he did, only people well versed in Trek lore (such as all of us here ) would enjoy it. The average moviegoer would go "huh?!", and in the last decade or so, our numbers have also dwindled. A lot of old fans are complaining about random stuff of whatever they have seen so far, not understanding the reasons for those complaints are exactly the reasons that will drive this movie to be a success. The more success the movie has, the more Trek we'll have in the long run.

And we don't really have any complaints about that, do we?

I rather liked Watchmen probably because I judged it for what it was meant to be rather than what I might think it should have been.. If it bombed then I think part of the problem is mostly with some people's expectations of what they thought it would be. Also the subject matter of deconstructing superheroes isn't a new idea anymore--it's been going on for twenty years and in the mainstream medium of TV and film for about a decade now, and so this likely won't resonate the same way the original print form did.

And from I've heard it's doing better here in Canada then in the States. Also practically everyone I know who has seen it has generally liked it and most of them aren't as critical and/or analytical as I am with this kind of materiel.

 

[ST-One]

^If I knew there was going to be a ''fight'' between you two, I woulda brought popcorn!

I have a bag of cashews; if you want some...

 

[Albertus]

Jeez, what a bunch of old women! Bicker, bicker, bicker. It comes down to personal preference. Trying to compare a non-Trek film to Trek is ludicrious. As for time travel, people like time travel stories - a possible exception is Enterprise, a stillborn series that should never have existed.

 

[miraclefan]

Jeez, what a bunch of old women! Bicker, bicker, bicker. It comes down to personal preference. Trying to compare a non-Trek film to Trek is ludicrious. As for time travel, people like time travel stories - a possible exception is Enterprise, a stillborn series that should never have existed.

^Speek for your self, Enterprise was great it's last two season's and I can only imagine where they could have gone if it continued.