I’ll just go ahead and say it: I don’t like Star Trek.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: I’ll just go ahead and say it: I don’t like Star Trek.

And if the sequel sucks, then the mass market fans will depart and how dead will Star Trek be then?

Right.

Well then, Star Trek will be right back where it was in 2006.

Except that we'll have had this great movie in addition.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

I didn't like it. I felt the dialogue was too dumbed down.

It seemed like the typical TOS TV and TOS movie dialogue to me.

And sorry just can't understand why the Grand Canyon is in Iowa.

Sign:
"DANGER, OPEN QUARRY AHEAD"

...and even if you didn't see the sign, it looked like a quarry...

 

[Cryogenic]

You had me until, "a gradual decline in the art and craft of motion picture making since 1979 ".

1979? Really? What a coincidence! You know what, maybe filmmaking just took a nose dive after Dec 7th 1979. You don't care about film - you're just a drooling Trekkie Fanboy, aren't you?

The mental gymnastics people will go through to slag Abrams is just crazy.

"Drooling Trekkie Fanboy"?

"Mental gymnastics"?

I think you should get a hold of yourself.

Note: ad hominem and strawmen attacks are, generally, not good.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Essentially, what Paramount has done is break up with their long term wife to chase after a young hot girl. And for now, they are thrilled because the young hot girl love love LOVES them. But the wife was extremely loyal and stuck with them through a lot of crap. The young hot girl is fickle and not likely to do the same. If they screw up the sequel, the young hot girl will not hesitate to dump them for the next big thing, and they will likely be left with neither.

Hey, we've yet to see what they'll do with the TNG/DS9/Titan stuff from here - but they seem to have just done some big relaunches where the book series are concerned. I haven't heard anyone in any official capacity say that that universe is done, by any means.

Maybe they think they can have their Kate (Janeway), and Edith (Keeler), too.

 

[cmdrbolly]

You had me until, "a gradual decline in the art and craft of motion picture making since 1979 ".

1979? Really? What a coincidence! You know what, maybe filmmaking just took a nose dive after Dec 7th 1979. You don't care about film - you're just a drooling Trekkie Fanboy, aren't you?

The mental gymnastics people will go through to slag Abrams is just crazy.

"Drooling Trekkie Fanboy"?

"Mental gymnastics"?

I think you should get a hold of yourself.

Note: ad hominem and strawmen attacks are, generally, not good.

And I think you should try addressing the point. Intellectual dishonesty is, always, not good.

 

[TheGodBen]

the problem with this movie is not that it isnt ENTERTAINING because it is ENTERTAINING!

It really depends upon what you find entertaining and why. Somebody earlier described this movie as a rollercoaster, which I admit I find entertaining but only if I'm riding it, if I'm watching somebody else ride it then I'm not interested. For me to enjoy a movie like this I have to feel emotionally connected to the characters, otherwise it is as boring as watching a random group of people riding a rollercoaster. For one reason or another I did not feel emotionally connected to these characters, the closest I got was with Spock during the Vulcan scenes and their aftermath, but even that was blown in the final act.

Personally, I did not find this movie to be all that entertaining, especially during the final act when I gave up on trying to care about the events on-screen and awaited the end of the movie.

 

[Cryogenic]

cmdrbolly (et al.)

If you think the people who dislike this film are voracious, I implore you to look again.

The evidence suggests it is the TOTAL OPPOSITE.

For an illuminating experience, go to Rotten Tomatoes and compare the extremely disproportionate responses.

Positive reviews are generally untouched, while negative reviews have dozens of responders laying into each critic. The over-defensive, reactionary fans are (amongst) its supporters, not its detractors/dislikers.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

OP --

I've respected your opinions in the past, and I respect it now -- although I disagree.

I think the fact that the film was "enjoyable" is good enough. I liked it at the time I was viewing it, and that's usually all that I ask. I haven't thought too much about the details of the film itself since leaving the theater, although I do fondly remember the "positive emotions" I felt during the 2 hours and 6 minutes of film viewing.

It wasn't "great" or "powerful" or "important" but...

[dying kirk] It was...fun. [/dying kirk]

 

[Neopeius]

"Star Trek: The Starlost"

by Cordwainer Bird

 

[cmdrbolly]

cmdrbolly (et al.)

If you think the people who dislike this film are voracious, I implore you to look again.

The evidence suggests it is the TOTAL OPPOSITE.

For an illuminating experience, go to Rotten Tomatoes and compare the extremely disproportionate responses.

Positive reviews are generally untouched, while negative reviews have dozens of responders laying into each critic. The over-defensive, reactionary fans are (amongst) its supporters, not its detractors/dislikers.

I have nothing against not liking the film. That is, and always will be, your prerogative. I even welcome discussion/arguments about the various merits and demerits of the film. But surely you agree that for any discussion to be fruitful, both parties must be willing agree that their arguments be reasonably intellectually honest.

So far all the whingeing has been ridiculous - people argue about the existence of plotholes (gasp), weak science ( NO!) and the accuracy of time travel (impossible!) as depicted in STXI, when their own little ST sacred cows are equally riddled with same. That's just plain dishonest bullshit.

The fact is, all they're arguing over is the flavour of plotholes, weak science and made up time travel laws. Everything else is just an attempt to find some objective rationale to support what is their emotional reaction to STXI.

And you come along and try and use this 'filmmaking has gone downhill since 1979' crap to justify your dislike of STXI. That's such hogwash it's scary. If you don't like the film, great! I just don't see the need to try and rewrite film history in order to justify your reasons for doing so.

 

[Neopeius]

Hey look at that, someone who posted their (generally negative) thoughts in a sane respectful way without whining endlessly about pointless canon stuff. It's amazing

And he was still attacked for it.

Those damned haters.

 

[Silent_Bob]

I have nothing against not liking the film. That is, and always will be, your prerogative. I even welcome discussion/arguments about the various merits and demerits of the film. But surely you agree that for any discussion to be fruitful, both parties must be willing agree that their arguments be reasonably intellectually honest.

So far all the whingeing has been ridiculous - people argue about the existence of plotholes (gasp), weak science ( NO!) and the accuracy of time travel (impossible!) as depicted in STXI, when their own little ST sacred cows are equally riddled with same. That's just plain dishonest bullshit.

The fact is, all they're arguing over is the flavour of plotholes, weak science and made up time travel laws. Everything else is just an attempt to find some objective rationale to support what is their emotional reaction to STXI.

Please enlighten me how your dismissal of negative criticism as "whingeing" is an intellectual arguement?

Just because there are plotholes elsewhere within Star Trek, does not make it ok for the new film to have them. And i have yet to see anyone who didnt like the film claim that the rest of Star Trek is flawless, at least not any who are trying to be rational in their dislike. But just because the rest of the films are flawed, doesnt mean that we have to blindly accept them in STXI. Hell, i cant remember Nemesis ever being afforded that luxury.

Personally it is your post reads more like an attempt to find an "objective rationale to support what is their emotional reaction to STXI" than any i have read criticising the film.

 

[Cryogenic]

And you come along and try and use this 'filmmaking has gone downhill since 1979' crap to justify your dislike of STXI. That's such hogwash it's scary. If you don't like the film, great! I just don't see the need to try and rewrite film history in order to justify your reasons for doing so.

It's not my "rewriting film history". That's your fallacious tendency for resorting to melodrama, again.

Rather, it's my ..... hold on for this one ..... SUBJECTIVE OPINION, which everybody is entitled to and naturally has.

'Course, I was being a little facetious about it, but only a little. Good filmmaking abounds today just as surely as yesteryear. Recently, I have been stunned by the likes of "The Wrestler" and "There Will Be Blood", and, more specifically, in the area of family entertainment, I found "WALL-E" totally captivating.

My comment was a stab at a noticeable decline in a certain kind of film -- at least, a decline I personally feel has taken place. The likes of "Superman Returns", "Iron Man" and now this new "Star Trek" don't remotely match the hype, in my opinion. I would even say, to a lesser degree, the same is true, again, for me, personally, of "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight Returns", even the "Lord of the Rings" pictures. It's too detailed to get into now, but the "magic" isn't there, for me. This is in marked contrast to the 70's, where I can look back and admire pictures from all over, across all genres. I gave 1979 partly for it being tied to TMP and partly for it being the last year of a particular decade I hold in high esteem.

But the thing under discussion here is JJ Abrams' "Star Trek", not my film tastes or reasoning. Avoiding any undue offence, I wonder what it is that you're doing in a thread like this? If you don't like people criticising this movie, this isn't the best place to be. Read the opening post again. The topic starter is looking for people dissatisfied with STXI, not fans of it. Seems like you're only going to get wound up rubbing shoulders with dissenting views (relative to your own) in here. There are plenty of other threads that would suit you better.

 

[Gepard]

It really depends upon what you find entertaining and why. Somebody earlier described this movie as a rollercoaster, which I admit I find entertaining but only if I'm riding it, if I'm watching somebody else ride it then I'm not interested. For me to enjoy a movie like this I have to feel emotionally connected to the characters, otherwise it is as boring as watching a random group of people riding a rollercoaster. For one reason or another I did not feel emotionally connected to these characters, the closest I got was with Spock during the Vulcan scenes and their aftermath, but even that was blown in the final act.

Personally, I did not find this movie to be all that entertaining, especially during the final act when I gave up on trying to care about the events on-screen and awaited the end of the movie.

Not a bad summary, right here. I'll add that I felt pretty connected to the characters through the first act or two; somehow, the movie lost me as it moved into the final act and the battle to stop Nero. Part of the problem is, I think, that the film's best scene--the battle of the Kelvin and Kirk's birth/George's death--happens right at the opening. I'd been hearing about how powerful that scene was and figured it could never live up to the hype. Yet it did, and so it set my expectations for the film very, very high, because the writers had just shown what they're capable of if they try. Conversely, the finale lacked just about everything that made the opening work. I wasn't invested in Nero as an antagonist, so I didn't care about him or the destruction of the Narada, the conflict between Kirk and Spock was dropped so there was no tension there, and as I already mentioned, the tone stayed inappropriately jocular throughout so it was hard to feel like these were real people really fighting a fight that mattered. And by that time, the seams in the story's logic had started to show, straining the goodwill it had built by that point.

In a way, I think if the movie had played backwards, and opened weak and finished strong, my attitude would be very different. But the decreasing quality of the scenes makes it feel like they stopped trying and it left me sour after walking out of the theater.

There's plenty of other interesting comments, both pro and con, that I'll reply to when I have more time later; I just want to say I like seeing multiple viewpoints on this, and appreciate that we're having a civil discussion about the movie's merits (for once.)

 

[exodus]

But, realistically, Paramount doesn't care about those fans. Paramount wants the mass market fans, and this movie is getting them. So this is the path they will take, and if they lose some long-term supporters? Well too bad, but they don't really care.

This is a better way of putting things than I have. I've said a lot will ride on the next movie, and your above point is why. Star Trek will lose some longterm fans, or at least the long term fans that didn't like Star Trek 2009 will not return for a sequel.

And if the sequel sucks, then the mass market fans will depart and how dead will Star Trek be then? Will anyone ever want to bring it back if that happens?

Right.

Essentially, what Paramount has done is break up with their long term wife to chase after a young hot girl. And for now, they are thrilled because the young hot girl love love LOVES them. But the wife was extremely loyal and stuck with them through a lot of crap. The young hot girl is fickle and not likely to do the same. If they screw up the sequel, the young hot girl will not hesitate to dump them for the next big thing, and they will likely be left with neither.

Judging for the wife's opinions of Voy, ENT. & Nemesis, she was asking for a divorce anyway.

Besides, most of us at one time were the young hot girl and still stayed and became the wife. How many here are old enough to have been around when TOS premiered? Starting at TNG and beyond still would make one a young hot girl.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Hey look at that, someone who posted their (generally negative) thoughts in a sane respectful way without whining endlessly about pointless canon stuff. It's amazing

And he was still attacked for it.

Those damned haters.

Well, I just read all 115 posts, and only ONE post "attacked" the OP.

I thought this whole thread has been very polite in responding to the OP ( to Gep for setting the standard in post #1).

 

[cmdrbolly]

I have nothing against not liking the film. That is, and always will be, your prerogative. I even welcome discussion/arguments about the various merits and demerits of the film. But surely you agree that for any discussion to be fruitful, both parties must be willing agree that their arguments be reasonably intellectually honest.

So far all the whingeing has been ridiculous - people argue about the existence of plotholes (gasp), weak science ( NO!) and the accuracy of time travel (impossible!) as depicted in STXI, when their own little ST sacred cows are equally riddled with same. That's just plain dishonest bullshit.

The fact is, all they're arguing over is the flavour of plotholes, weak science and made up time travel laws. Everything else is just an attempt to find some objective rationale to support what is their emotional reaction to STXI.

Please enlighten me how your dismissal of negative criticism as "whingeing" is an intellectual arguement?

Just because there are plotholes elsewhere within Star Trek, does not make it ok for the new film to have them. And i have yet to see anyone who didnt like the film claim that the rest of Star Trek is flawless, at least not any who are trying to be rational in their dislike. But just because the rest of the films are flawed, doesnt mean that we have to blindly accept them in STXI. Hell, i cant remember Nemesis ever being afforded that luxury.

Personally it is your post reads more like an attempt to find an "objective rationale to support what is their emotional reaction to STXI" than any i have read criticising the film.

Excuse me, but if you yell at me for kicking my dog while you're doing the same, then you can be only one thing - (a) a hypocrite (b) a bloody idiot or (c) One of the Star Trek nutters presently railing against STXI.

Who said anything about blindly accepting the flaws of STXI? I'm talking about blindly accepting the bullshit that is most of Star Trek, and then trying to claim some intellectual high ground in order to dismiss STXI. The large majority of the ST universe is warmed-over, ham-fisted, sermonizing crap. Most of the roles are inhabited by B grade actors who could never have any other sort of career outside of Trek; acting in stories and spewing lines written by pretty average writers ( 'cept maybe Ellison ); directed by, with few exceptions, journeymen hacks. That's the objective truth. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with liking, even loving their output. But please, have some freaking perspective here.

 

[exodus]

Hey look at that, someone who posted their (generally negative) thoughts in a sane respectful way without whining endlessly about pointless canon stuff. It's amazing

And he was still attacked for it.

Those damned haters.

Well, I just read all 115 posts, and only ONE post "attacked" the OP (post #77).

I think the point is valid.

Who spends double the amount of money to see a film twice just to confirm they didn't like it? The point still stands, you give studios the impression of approval if you're willing to spend more money on something you don't like.

I have no doubt the accountants at Paramount would read "I don't like it after seeing it twice" and laugh

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

And he was still attacked for it.

Those damned haters.

Well, I just read all 115 posts, and only ONE post "attacked" the OP

I think the point is valid.

Who spends double the amount of money to see a film twice just to confirm they didn't like it? The point still stands, you give studios the impression of approval if you're willing to spend more money on something you don't like.

I'm sorry I singled you out -- That may have been the result, but it wasn't my intention...

...I wasn't trying to "call you out" as much as pointing out that this thread has been by-and-large a very polite and fair discussion.

(I'll edit my post as to "not name names")

 

[exodus]

Well, I just read all 115 posts, and only ONE post "attacked" the OP

I think the point is valid.

Who spends double the amount of money to see a film twice just to confirm they didn't like it? The point still stands, you give studios the impression of approval if you're willing to spend more money on something you don't like.

I'm sorry I singled you out -- That may have been the result, but it wasn't my intention...

...I wasn't trying to "call you out" as much as pointing out that this thread has been by-and-large a very polite and fair duscussion.

(I'll edit my post as to "not name names")

No offence taken in anyway.

I think bringing what I said to light(not to toot my own horn) brings up IMO the biggest flaw in the OP's thought process and makes his opinion not worth a hill of beans because he's saying one thing while doing the complete opposite.