If you wish to be insulted, be my guest.
What's keeping me out of the theatre....
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
If you wish to be insulted, be my guest.
number6
Vice Admiral
Calm down, that was a joke. Boy, you guys just can't take critisism of the film well. There are so many reasons why the new movie sucks the apple is the least of its problems.
You have yet to provide a cogent line of reasoning beyond a bunch of name calling and eye rolling. That to me is hardly a convincing argument, therefore: YOU FAIL.
There are, in fact, two things that bother me about the film, but neither are deal breakers. The only sense I'm getting from the naysayers is that they failed to exactly replicate the TV show. That is unrealistic given what the film needed to accomplish: Restart the franchise by bringing in a new generation of fans.
Outside a very small handful of implacable dissenters on the intrawebs, this film seems to have accomplished that.
No, the goal of the movie makers, as any other movie, was to make be a good movie. What you state is the wish of a Trek starved fan.
I didn't like the story. In my book it failed in its goal. It failed largely because it moved away from being Trek, aside for some eye candy of special effects, uniforms, sounds, names and planets. In other words, it was superfishal. However, that has been the case with many, if not all, of the latest TNG films. So in that respect it is Trek but a mere shadow of what it can truly be.
What I state is what the film set out to accomplish. The producers also wanted to make a good film and that was a primary goal. They accomplished both. The overwhelmingly positive reviews and box office numbers prove that as well. You haven't told me how it has "moved away from being Trek" as it clearly hasn't, or at least not according to *this* longtime Star Trek fan. I am not a Trek starved fan and it is mighty presumptuous to imply that I am. The only issues you seem to have with the film seem to be highly superficial ( and it is spelled superficial). If all you fail to see the story and characters beyond the lens flares and explosions, that is your failing, not mine.
You haven't given proof of anything at all, just filled yet another page of internet bandwidth with useless hyperbole.
Get back to me when you have something to say.
I'm sure it will be a long wait and hardly worth it.
"Trek starved fans?"
God, that's a laugh. Before they announced this movie I didn't give a fuck whether they ever produced another hour of Star Trek. I think it's the folks who are angry who are more over-invested in Trek than the folks who happen to like a movie.
number6
Vice Admiral
No kidding.
"Trek starved fans?"
God, that's a laugh. Before they announced this movie I didn't give a fuck whether they ever produced another hour of Star Trek. I think it's the folks who are angry who are more over-invested in Trek than the folks who happen to like a movie.
Fourth time today, this one at the IMAX. Still loved it!
Saw it with six friends, one a non-fan first-timer. We all had a great time, and the newbie wants to know when we're going again.
The IMAX session was sold out. Not bad for a movie in its third weekend of release.
Saw it with six friends, one a non-fan first-timer. We all had a great time, and the newbie wants to know when we're going again.
The IMAX session was sold out. Not bad for a movie in its third weekend of release.
Interesting point, though I'd hasten to differentiate between playfully dumb as in "A Piece of the Action" and just plain stupid and awful as in "And the Children Shall Lead." This movie was far more the former than the latter and I really enjoyed it. Really. I did.
But then I liked the Star Wars prequels, too--AotC and RotS, that is; TPM is an abomination, but then, so is RotJ.
EDIT: And I'll take this movie over just about all of the Trek product since 1982, with the possible exceptions of most of DS9 and maybe a dozen or so hours of TNG.
I've already discussed why I did not like the movie. Frankly, I do not care to do so again, and again, and again. The point being is that we have a disagreement about the quality of the movie. It is a great action flick. Thats why somany people like it. And I will give it that, it is a great, flashy action movie, but little else.
And again, no matter how much people attempt to imagine substance into the movie it is simply not there. Sorry, it isn't. The movie fails greatly in that respect.
Now you're being silly. Sorry.
Christ, I liked the movie and there was virtually no substance to it--unless you call shoehorning Kirk into the Play-Dough Arthur Skywalker Myth Mold (now with CW Bad Boy attachment!) and rehashing Spock's mommy issues substantive. Indeed, Abrams seemed hell-bent on bleeding whatever substance there was out of "talky" (his word, not mine) Trek and replacing it with a bubblegum thrill-ride with a little bit of pathos (but only a little bit; the death of Vulcan, something which could have cast a pall over this film, is just a bump in the road on the way to Kirk and Spock's bromantic comedy consumation) tossed in. (And really, Spock seemed far more upset over the death of his human mother than those pesky 5,999,999,999* other souls; wonder what the "death of one, death of a million" Spock of "The Immunity Syndrome" would have to say to that.)
Of course, "substance" in Star Trek was often heavy-handed and facile at its best so maybe--just maybe--we're better off without it. If we want substance, we should watch Children of Men or eXistenZ or Solaris or A Scanner Darkly--according to Box Office Mojo, nobody else did. (And I got my head bit off for suggesting that smart SF doesn't sell. Silly me!)
*But then, according to Countdown, most Vulcans and Romulans are suspicious, paranoid and xenophobic so perhaps we need shed no tears for either planet--no more than we shed for the Mallurians, at least, and ENT showed us they were just the lizard people from V.
Last edited:
number6
Vice Admiral
I'm amazed this thread is still going...
People keep forgetting the context of this movie. The "canon trumpeters" should realize that there's no reason to get all caught up in a fervor to denounce ST:XI. It's a separate time line. It is an alternate fantasy. Accept it! There is nothing to be threatened by.
Now, pushing that aside, we then have the question of whether this is a good movie on its own. Relative to what? To other movies of today? Or previously made movies? What makes a good movie? Well, of course there is a subjective aspect to it. It's hard to argue with someone's opinion when they're not objective...
Hey, if someone wants an action movie to have a 'light' plot and pedestrian acting as a trade off for mesmerizing special effects, superb displays of violence, and little respect for plausibility, they've got a lot of choice today. It's "quick fix" entertainment. You don't have to think much. Just sit back and enjoy the ride. Eye candy galore, and you don't even have to move a finger. Ummmm... I'm having flashbacks of Wall-E.
Star Trek XI appears to have a good heavy jolt of this. But there are some impressive displays of theatrical personification, and spine chilling juxtapositions. If it lacked that, more people would be dragging it all over the hot coals of disapproval (those of discriminating taste and not hungry for mindless eye candy). Yes, this is not "old Star Trek". It is Abram's take that is coasting on the trendy qualities of movies today. Given that, the movie appears to have done pretty well.
Star Trek used to have more of a cerebral bend to it... substance over quick-fix special effects that make kids drool for joy. I had hoped the franchise could keep that going and not try to augment that huge segment of the population who don't want to think when they watch a movie. But Insurrection and Nemesis was the first step in that direction (Nemesis being the one much more afoul).
I long for the days to return when people stop loading their movies with hype over substance. Commercialism over quality. It's an epidemic of the day.
Speaking of which, anybody see the trailer for the new Sherlock Holmes movie? The one with Robert Downey Jr. taking the esteemed lead British role? I'm aghast. It looks like an action movie. Slow-mo camera stunts, taken straight from The Matrix. Massive fights that leave reality in the dust (um, most of the punches thrown in movies these days would break knuckles... but people keep on punching like they've got iron fists--it's comical). This is supposed to be a cerebral kind of story. Of thick twisted plots where you're on the edge of your seat to figure it out. Not eye catching violence. You see... THIS is the problem with movies today. And I think Star Trek suffers from some of this. And this is probably what is fueling some of the arguments between those that like the movie and those who were disappointed. Eye-candy over substance. Yep... some of you are addicted to it, and don't even know it.
People keep forgetting the context of this movie. The "canon trumpeters" should realize that there's no reason to get all caught up in a fervor to denounce ST:XI. It's a separate time line. It is an alternate fantasy. Accept it! There is nothing to be threatened by.
Now, pushing that aside, we then have the question of whether this is a good movie on its own. Relative to what? To other movies of today? Or previously made movies? What makes a good movie? Well, of course there is a subjective aspect to it. It's hard to argue with someone's opinion when they're not objective...
Hey, if someone wants an action movie to have a 'light' plot and pedestrian acting as a trade off for mesmerizing special effects, superb displays of violence, and little respect for plausibility, they've got a lot of choice today. It's "quick fix" entertainment. You don't have to think much. Just sit back and enjoy the ride. Eye candy galore, and you don't even have to move a finger. Ummmm... I'm having flashbacks of Wall-E.
Star Trek XI appears to have a good heavy jolt of this. But there are some impressive displays of theatrical personification, and spine chilling juxtapositions. If it lacked that, more people would be dragging it all over the hot coals of disapproval (those of discriminating taste and not hungry for mindless eye candy). Yes, this is not "old Star Trek". It is Abram's take that is coasting on the trendy qualities of movies today. Given that, the movie appears to have done pretty well.
Star Trek used to have more of a cerebral bend to it... substance over quick-fix special effects that make kids drool for joy. I had hoped the franchise could keep that going and not try to augment that huge segment of the population who don't want to think when they watch a movie. But Insurrection and Nemesis was the first step in that direction (Nemesis being the one much more afoul).
I long for the days to return when people stop loading their movies with hype over substance. Commercialism over quality. It's an epidemic of the day.
Speaking of which, anybody see the trailer for the new Sherlock Holmes movie? The one with Robert Downey Jr. taking the esteemed lead British role? I'm aghast. It looks like an action movie. Slow-mo camera stunts, taken straight from The Matrix. Massive fights that leave reality in the dust (um, most of the punches thrown in movies these days would break knuckles... but people keep on punching like they've got iron fists--it's comical). This is supposed to be a cerebral kind of story. Of thick twisted plots where you're on the edge of your seat to figure it out. Not eye catching violence. You see... THIS is the problem with movies today. And I think Star Trek suffers from some of this. And this is probably what is fueling some of the arguments between those that like the movie and those who were disappointed. Eye-candy over substance. Yep... some of you are addicted to it, and don't even know it.
Last edited:
Indeed. But that's the state of the culture. Why should Star Trek be immune?
I'm afraid it goes beyond movies too... the quality of the average individual has diminished. A product of our over commercialized materialism centric society. Few escape... thus the disease proliferates. The gene pool weakened. So sad... losing our potential to be so much more. 
You've made my wife cry, you understand.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
I'm sure there were people like you around who said the very same thing when Mozart and Beethoven performed their commissioned works of music.
