The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
The character development in Star Trek is much better than in either of the other two. Star Trek's plot is its weakest element, but that's hardly a new development for Trek movies (not an excuse, merely an observation). I enjoyed ID4 as a summer popcorn movie (much like I enjoyed Star Trek) but I found Star Trek a superior film (though certainly not perfect). As for Armageddon, I did not connect with any of the characters, so, consequently, I did not enjoy it all that much. I'd rewatch ID4 but it's unlikely I'd revisit Armageddon.
of course it does.
Trek brings with it 40 years of philosophical (granted, pseudo-arty) depth. neither ID4, nor Armageddon do that.
Trek is Trek. by itself, it promises something more than wham bam thank you ma'am. neither of those movies do that.
what dkehler wants to know is what makes Trek better than those movies. nothing makes it better. everything makes it better to US.
I suggest to you that there was not any more character development in Star Trek than the other movies I mentioned. I suggest to you that you only think there was because the many, many hours of development that came before this movie, but don't really count because that was an alternative universe.
Star Trek the series does everything you suggested. Star Trek this latest movie does not and that is the problem that many of us have with it.
of course it does.
Trek brings with it 40 years of philosophical (granted, pseudo-arty) depth. neither ID4, nor Armageddon do that.
Trek is Trek. by itself, it promises something more than wham bam thank you ma'am. neither of those movies do that.
what dkehler wants to know is what makes Trek better than those movies. nothing makes it better. everything makes it better to US.
Originally Posted by Blue_Trek 
At the end of the movie, you really do want to see the next adventure this particular group will encounter as they go to warp. And that is what makes this movie the best success, you want to see the sequel.
We are the Neo-Trek fans, Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated
At the end of the movie, you really do want to see the next adventure this particular group will encounter as they go to warp. And that is what makes this movie the best success, you want to see the sequel.
Now that is what separates the fan base, either your living off the past for your fandom, or your looking at the present and the future.
We are the Neo-Trek fans, Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated
I really don't mean to pick on you, but your argument seemingly boils down to: A bad movie or one that is a guilty pleasure is automatically better if it's called Star Trek.
Star Trek the series does everything you suggested. Star Trek this latest movie does not and that is the problem that many of us have with it.But that has no rational basis
of course it does.
Trek brings with it 40 years of philosophical (granted, pseudo-arty) depth. neither ID4, nor Armageddon do that.
Trek is Trek. by itself, it promises something more than wham bam thank you ma'am. neither of those movies do that.
what dkehler wants to know is what makes Trek better than those movies. nothing makes it better. everything makes it better to US.
oh, so you're telling me Man Trap did the same thing as Amok Time? that Spock's Brain did the same thing as COTEOF? that ATCSL did the same thing as Balance of Terror?
of course it does.
Trek brings with it 40 years of philosophical (granted, pseudo-arty) depth. neither ID4, nor Armageddon do that.
Trek is Trek. by itself, it promises something more than wham bam thank you ma'am. neither of those movies do that.
what dkehler wants to know is what makes Trek better than those movies. nothing makes it better. everything makes it better to US.
Trek as a whole brings the philosophical depth, but not the movie. That is what I am referring to. Your love of this movie has an irrational basis in the sense that you are not viewing it in an objective way that fits into the spirit you stated (which was spot-on, btw), but in which the good foundation of Trek excuses the failings of the movie. That is not rational and is a lapse in logic.
Premise: John is a good man. He is good because he is caring and insightful. I like John because he is caring and insightful
John becomes abusive and ignorant
Conclusion: I like John because John is a good man?
See the lapse? The predicate good is contingent upon the predicates caring and insightful. Without the predicates caring and insightful we loose good, and the conclusion must be you DO NOT like John because he is NOT a good man. To attribute characteristics that an object was previously endowed with which it does not currently possess is illogical.
I think the core of the argument is that the predicates of the subject have changed in the perception of an unknown percentage of the community and to like an object for traits previously possessed is a lapse of logic.
Okay, I have not posted on this board in a long time. I am going to see the movie tomorrow. I have tried to avoid a lot of the spoliers but, for me, it is hard to avoid everything. As an old man (to a lot of you), I was there for the beginning in 1966. I have watched everything from then on. Some has been good and some has been bad, but with everything I watched that was Trek, I kept in mind that it was Trek. I will give my review tomorrow (or Thursday, we oldtimers need our rest after a big outing).
Griz
Griz
No, that is not what I'm telling you. Please try again.
I'm curious... does this cover more than the person you're quoting? It just seems to be quite the attempt to be patronising, with some lazy writing causing some major plot holes.
But the performance was spot on.
no, I think YOU need to try. again.
enlighten me.
please.
how is what I stated different from what you implied in your post, exactly?
The one thing I hated about the movie is that it ended. I have already seen it three times this weekend. I always loved the original series best. The casting in the movie near was perfect. It was great to see my old favorites young and viral again and not to mention easy on the eyes. My favorite was the NuSpock- HOT HOT HOT. I loved his backstory -- and the depth and the anger beneath his cool exterior made him irresistable! Of course the lovely Uhura would go for him - completely believable! Thanks to Abrahms, Star Trek is no longer just for geeks!
Reason for favoring Trek over other popcorn action movies stated by Indranee: Trek, and by extension, Abrams Trek has a philosophical core those movies do not possess
My contention: Trek possesses said qualities, but the new movie does not. To attribute previous qualities to a present form which lacks them is a lapse in logic.
But that has no rational basis
of course it does.
Trek brings with it 40 years of philosophical (granted, pseudo-arty) depth. neither ID4, nor Armageddon do that.
Trek is Trek. by itself, it promises something more than wham bam thank you ma'am. neither of those movies do that.
what dkehler wants to know is what makes Trek better than those movies. nothing makes it better. everything makes it better to US.
Trek as a whole brings the philosophical depth, but not the movie. That is what I am referring to. Your love of this movie has an irrational basis in the sense that you are not viewing it in an objective way that fits into the spirit you stated (which was spot-on, btw), but in which the good foundation of Trek excuses the failings of the movie. That is not rational and is a lapse in logic.
Premise: John is a good man. He is good because he is caring and insightful. I like John because he is caring and insightful
John becomes abusive and ignorant
Conclusion: I like John because John is a good man?
See the lapse? The predicate good is contingent upon the predicates caring and insightful. Without the predicates caring and insightful we loose good, and the conclusion must be you DO NOT like John because he is NOT a good man. To attribute characteristics that an object was previously endowed with which it does not currently possess is illogical.
I think the core of the argument is that the predicates of the subject have changed in the perception of an unknown percentage of the community and to like an object for traits previously possessed is a lapse of logic.
of course I am not objective! that's my freakin' point!
I submit, though, that you aren't, either.
at least, judging from the tone of your post.
of course I am not objective! that's my freakin' point!
I submit, though, that you aren't, either.
Ah, what human is truly objective? We only work with what we are given, and the limitations of perception and thought are many. I do wish I could lose my desire to be as objective as humanly possible, however, it would make some aspects of life somewhat less bitter. But I digress...
You should let the good feeling this movie brings you sit for a while and really investigate it, however. All good movies are only good movies when given some degree of scrutiny.
that's where you're wrong. just because YOU don't see said quality does not mean I do not either (or that doesn't exist). and as I pointed out, that's exactly your (in the plural, not just YOU) problem: lack of objectivity when it comes to THIS movie.
oh, and, I could've gotten angry at your said patronizing 'tude, dude, but I've been on this board too damned long.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
- Poll
