Here are the last two paragraphs in the movie novelization:
Well forgive us for not living up to your exacting standards.
You know what, I'll match my "critical thinking skills" with you, or anyone else on this board, any day of the week and twice on Sundays. I don't consider myself the most intelligent poster at this BBS (I've been fortunate to interact with several posters who are, indeed, a fair bit smarter than I am), but I in no way feel remotely inferior to you. Ordinarily, I wouldn't even bring this up but as you've repeatedly made it a topic of discussion (either directly or indirectly stating that those who enjoy this film lack "critical thinking skills") and I have a bit of time to kill, I thought I'd call you on it.
Frankly, the lack of "critical thinking" is largely yours. Trek has NEVER been anything more than "light fare"--it (very) occasionally strayed into the territory of the mildly more intelligent than other pop culture entertainment, but not nearly enough to actually consider it as a defining characteristic. To think otherwise is indulging in a far more distorted form of nostalgia than that of fans (new or long-standing) who view this film as another fun romp in the Trek playground (as, incidentally, Orr views it in his far from scathing review).
The repeated attempts by a (thankfully) few people who have not liked the film to suggest that those who do like it are "idiots", "lack critical thinking skills", "are not true fans", "don't have a working brain", and so on, are pathetic and absurd. Feel free to dislike, even hate, the film. Do not feel free to presume that those who do not share your view are somehow, automatically, less intelligent than you (both you specifically and the collective "you" who've expressed like-minded assertions). Such a view is a surer display of missing "critical thinking skills" than professing to enjoy this new movie.
What a sad, limited life you must lead. One destined for many bitter disappointments, I should think.Well forgive us for not living up to your exacting standards.
You know what, I'll match my "critical thinking skills" with you, or anyone else on this board, any day of the week and twice on Sundays. I don't consider myself the most intelligent poster at this BBS (I've been fortunate to interact with several posters who are, indeed, a fair bit smarter than I am), but I in no way feel remotely inferior to you. Ordinarily, I wouldn't even bring this up but as you've repeatedly made it a topic of discussion (either directly or indirectly stating that those who enjoy this film lack "critical thinking skills") and I have a bit of time to kill, I thought I'd call you on it.
Frankly, the lack of "critical thinking" is largely yours. Trek has NEVER been anything more than "light fare"--it (very) occasionally strayed into the territory of the mildly more intelligent than other pop culture entertainment, but not nearly enough to actually consider it as a defining characteristic. To think otherwise is indulging in a far more distorted form of nostalgia than that of fans (new or long-standing) who view this film as another fun romp in the Trek playground (as, incidentally, Orr views it in his far from scathing review).
The repeated attempts by a (thankfully) few people who have not liked the film to suggest that those who do like it are "idiots", "lack critical thinking skills", "are not true fans", "don't have a working brain", and so on, are pathetic and absurd. Feel free to dislike, even hate, the film. Do not feel free to presume that those who do not share your view are somehow, automatically, less intelligent than you (both you specifically and the collective "you" who've expressed like-minded assertions). Such a view is a surer display of missing "critical thinking skills" than professing to enjoy this new movie.
I've yet to see an adequate explanation as to why this movie is so good, not a single adequate comment from any of the gushers. You people need to face it: You like the movie because you simply like the movie. As I said in a previous thread, most people just like things without a clear reason why, rendering them unable to utilize their critical thinking abilities to render a proper judgment on the object of their enjoyment. Their love is a simpler kind, an emotional attachment instead of a rational kind. This is the norm, it appears, don't don't be deluded into thinking that frequency makes it any more valid. So yeah, I do question the critical thinking skills of most of the gushers: The movie is simply not as good as they are making it out to be.
Where I HAVE seen the compelling arguments regarding the attributes of this movie are from the non-crazed critics and those who are a more nuanced or mixed opinion. Just because you like the movie does not make you simple, it's how you like the movie and why. If you can identify specific and real reasons why you like it that are consistent, you are obviously not an idiot. If you like the movie because you "Like it" there is no rational process behind that.
So, prove me wrong. Make a rational appeal for the film that is both consistent and based off of well considered observations.
So, will Scotty keep it or will that make his other pal jealous? I think that should be the main story focus of the sequel.Here are the last two paragraphs in the movie novelization:
No one was in the transporter room when it unexpectedly and fleetingly energized. The figure that emerged on the pad closest to the rest of the chamber did not hesitate, but made straight for the nearest open portal. The blip engendered by its appearance was too transitory and insufficient to alert security. It did not matter, because the unexpected arrival's appearance on board caused only consternation and not alarm.
For the life of them, as it sped outsystem and entered warp space, no one on the Enterprise could figure out where the beagle with the very peculiar ears had come from.
Since I crave more Star Trek movie, it was one of the things I could do for details when I'm not in the IMAX.
That seems like a "rational reason" to read the book.Since I crave more Star Trek movie, it was one of the things I could do for details when I'm not in the IMAX.
Perhaps if my "critical thinking skills" are up to the task, I will get around to it (if you think it won't be too taxing). 
I actually listened to Zach Quinto's audio version. I love his voice, so critical thinking skills pretty much went up in smoke.That seems like a "rational reason" to read the book.
What a sad, limited life you must lead. One destined for many bitter disappointments, I should think.Well forgive us for not living up to your exacting standards.
You know what, I'll match my "critical thinking skills" with you, or anyone else on this board, any day of the week and twice on Sundays. I don't consider myself the most intelligent poster at this BBS (I've been fortunate to interact with several posters who are, indeed, a fair bit smarter than I am), but I in no way feel remotely inferior to you. Ordinarily, I wouldn't even bring this up but as you've repeatedly made it a topic of discussion (either directly or indirectly stating that those who enjoy this film lack "critical thinking skills") and I have a bit of time to kill, I thought I'd call you on it.
Frankly, the lack of "critical thinking" is largely yours. Trek has NEVER been anything more than "light fare"--it (very) occasionally strayed into the territory of the mildly more intelligent than other pop culture entertainment, but not nearly enough to actually consider it as a defining characteristic. To think otherwise is indulging in a far more distorted form of nostalgia than that of fans (new or long-standing) who view this film as another fun romp in the Trek playground (as, incidentally, Orr views it in his far from scathing review).
The repeated attempts by a (thankfully) few people who have not liked the film to suggest that those who do like it are "idiots", "lack critical thinking skills", "are not true fans", "don't have a working brain", and so on, are pathetic and absurd. Feel free to dislike, even hate, the film. Do not feel free to presume that those who do not share your view are somehow, automatically, less intelligent than you (both you specifically and the collective "you" who've expressed like-minded assertions). Such a view is a surer display of missing "critical thinking skills" than professing to enjoy this new movie.
I've yet to see an adequate explanation as to why this movie is so good, not a single adequate comment from any of the gushers. You people need to face it: You like the movie because you simply like the movie. As I said in a previous thread, most people just like things without a clear reason why, rendering them unable to utilize their critical thinking abilities to render a proper judgment on the object of their enjoyment. Their love is a simpler kind, an emotional attachment instead of a rational kind. This is the norm, it appears, don't don't be deluded into thinking that frequency makes it any more valid. So yeah, I do question the critical thinking skills of most of the gushers: The movie is simply not as good as they are making it out to be.
Where I HAVE seen the compelling arguments regarding the attributes of this movie are from the non-crazed critics and those who are a more nuanced or mixed opinion. Just because you like the movie does not make you simple, it's how you like the movie and why. If you can identify specific and real reasons why you like it that are consistent, you are obviously not an idiot. If you like the movie because you "Like it" there is no rational process behind that.
So, prove me wrong. Make a rational appeal for the film that is both consistent and based off of well considered observations.
No one needs to "prove" anything to you, you supercilious twit. Apart from professional film critics, no one is obligated to "make a rational appeal" to justify enjoying ANY movie. It's entertainment. WHY someone likes a film (or a piece of music, or a painting, or any form of art) neither requires a "rational" reason NOR does lacking such a reason represent grounds for considering someone as lacking "critical thinking skills".
Do you really spend your time examining every piece of art you encounter--whether the simplest of commercial pop art or a canvas painted by a Renaissance master (or anything in between)--looking for "rational reasons" to enjoy it? Is your enjoyment of any of those incomplete and invalid if you cannot articulate those reasons? If so, then I repeat, you must lead a sad, limited life full of bitter disappointment.
Of course one can examine a film critically and evaluate it against a set of criteria that is generally considered a valid measure of the quality of a film (cinematography, screenplay, set design, character development, plot coherence, acting performances, visual effects work, musical score, direction, etc.). In the end, though, even these criteria contain a subjective element in terms of one's appreciation. Does the new film fall short of perfection against these criteria? Of course it does. Feel better now?
Of course, what constitutes an "objectively good movie" and what constitutes a "good movie to an individual viewer" often differs. Casablanca is revered as a classic, even "perfect" film. It is one of my personal favourites. However, measured against the "checklist", it is full of flaws. If I only applied "rational" reasons to it, it would be hampered by its many flaws and I would be forced to conclude that it is "not good". I don't enjoy Casablanca for merely "rational" reasons. I enjoy it because it evokes a number of strong feelings--feelings that compel me to watch it at least once (if not twice) a year. I don't have to "prove" to you that Casablanca is a film I find "fantastic". That I do is its own justification--it's entertainment, not an engineering proposal for a safer airframe on jetliners. The same applies to this new Trek movie. WHY I like it is irrelevant to judging my intelligence or the quality of my "critical thinking skills". To believe otherwise is to be insufferably boorish, as well as foolish (to make such a sweeping conclusion about a person's intellect based on such a narrow set of data is, frankly, rather poor reasoning).
You are free to require that your "art appreciation" be "rational". It is a limited and stifling approach, but that's your choice. I (and most people) look to be entertained by our entertainment--and the hows and whys are entirely self-justified. They need no approbation from the likes of you. IF such entertainment also happens to stimulate our intellect AND we find such stimulation enjoyable, so much the better. But seeking such stimulation in escapist fun is not a requirement for one to be considered intelligent. To borrow one of those famous "deep" lessons from Trek--(I paraphrase as I have not memorized every line of dialogue ever uttered in Trek--my "intellect" is not sufficient to the task, I guess): "the more advanced the species, the greater the need for play" (that's from Shore Leave in the first season of TOS, for anyone not familiar with the reference). "Play" need not tax one's intellect to be legitimate. And Trek has never been intellectually taxing--why expect it to be so now?
No. It is not a lost cause. However, it is also not an obligation on the part of the viewer. He (or she) is perfectly entitled to choose NOT to do so, or to do so. In neither case can one correctly infer anything about the intelligence, or lack thereof, of the person in question. Choosing not to be critical can in no way constitute proof of lacking the ability to be critical. The basic thrust of your argument suggests otherwise.
So attempting to objectively analyzing film is a lost cause and we should just emotionally take in the world around us without a rational filter, especially if it's entertainment? OK
I'm not all that worried about what others think of my intellect. My self-esteem is not so fragile. However, I do take exception to blanket generalizations about people's intellects based on the notion that one is not choosing to provide "rational reasons" for liking (or disliking) something as subjective as entertainment and then concluding such people are incapable of "critical thought". It's an unfair presumption. I accept your apology, but I hope you understand why I took offence.
