Why is the new film doing so terribly outside the US..???

[CommanderRaytas]

Yeah, right. I'd love to be as dowdy as her
Personnally, I would have felt hot and bothered on the set, not dowdy, but that's just me

Me, too; I'm really enjoying your avatar.

That Air France affair is creeping me out, and I've boarded dozens of planes in my life.

Creeping me out, too; dying at sea is my #1 worst way of dying. Shivers. I can't stand the Titanic story. Or that plane that was rumored to have been hit by a rocket off New York. I'm also awed by historical accounts of galleons sinking in Caribbean hurricanes. No, thank you.

I'm not at all afraid of flying. I've had turbulence so bad they recollected the drinks. But I'm with you on the dying at sea thing being the most horrible death.

I also don't believe that lightning brought the plane down.

This crash is beyond creepy.

 

[Roshi]

Wolverine is not really comparable. It had Huge Jackman, so the entire female population of the world will go to see it.

Hon', keep it to yourself!

 

[M'Sharak]

What ugly, inflammatory language, and how does that patronize and belittle people? You mean the few sentences about how horribly bad the new movie is? It's pretty much impossible to say how bad the movie is by calling it "great".

Maybe you should question why you feel patronized and belittled when someone calls this movie horrendously bad. It seems it's more to do with you, then with my words.

Seeing as everything in that movie review about to the movie is factually correct, and anyone with a functional mind must concede those factually correct points raised are bad; it rather does prove some things.

I assume the point was that kind of language.

Yes, that would be one example: the condescending inference that anyone who disagrees with the conclusions drawn in the review must not be in possession of a functional mind. There and elsewhere in the same post, 3D Master was employing a sneaky means of calling someone stupid (let's see, now... who was it, this time?); if memory serves, I've asked him not to do that before, too.

 

[pookha]

Oh and just as an example, 3dMaster,

There were no factual errors whatsoever.

Here's one:
"Defying all logic, Future Spock is willing to sacrifice a billion of his own people in order keep his existence a secret from his past self"

Erm, when did that happen?

Oh, you're right! I was wrong. Spock when he was dumped on Delta Vega, he immediately set out to reach the Starfleet outpost, he reached it, and told Scotty his tale. Scotty contacted Starfleet, and with proper warning Starfleet - and a raised eyebrow from younger Spock at seeing his old self in the view creen - destroyed the Narada (sp?) and saved Vulcan!

He most certainly did not stuff himself in a cave doing nothing, except to get out and look with regret at the destruction of his planet, and then went to wait longer until he met Kirk, and only THEN set out for the Starfleet outpost - because you know, Kirk not being the captain of the Enterprise is so much more important than the destruction his home world.

Hold on a moment...

Oh, yeah!

oh i guess you missed in the movie where spock tells young kirk he indeed was on the way to the outpost..
he may very well had been chased in the cave by one of the creatures.
but i doubt if he would have had time to stop the destruction.
it looks like nero left him on delta vega just before going to vulcan.
he would then only had minutes (and from what we see in the long shot minutes would not have been enough) before the narada reached vulcan which is when all communication was cut off.

go back and look at comments on that review.
there are many errors that show the reviewer was only half paying attention to the film.

here is an earlier quote of mine about that review.

I disagree with a lot of what the reviewer has to say.

One such instance is his assertion that Uhura is only on Enterprise because she was sleeping with Spock. My impression was that the only reson why she wasn't initially assigned to Enterprise was her relationship with Spock. The conversation only corrected Spock's attempt to show no favortism.

yep it is made pretty clear that she earned her berth on the ship.

i suspect spock and kirk both made a case for scotty staying as chief engineer for the other things he did once he was on board.
despite the ship before only managing warp three due to the damage done by the narada scotty was able to get her up to warp four.
he also managed to beam two different sets of people from two different vast locations into the same beaming platform at the same time.
plus saving the ship from the singularity at the end.

and from what some of the stuff scotty was saying he was probably near the end of his being on delta vega anyway.


kirk got promoted because he first saved the enterprise from the initial narada attack because other wise her shields wouldnt have been raised.
he then saved earth then the rest of the federation.

i sometimes think some reviewers go in hating an assignment so much they dont really pay attention to the movie.

because he evidently missed a lot.

as for abrams and flying.. i dont know if he is afraid.
but asimov was for all his life.
so was ray bradbury until the french i think were going to present him with some special trophy and then he went through the how to overcome your fear of flying training.

 

[Minuialeth]

That's interesting, I hadn't thought about that. But if he is afraid of flying, he might be onto something. That Air France affair is creeping me out, and I've boarded dozens of planes in my life.

I suffer from aviophobia and when you like to travel, that's crippling. I have to limit my choices to the trips without plane flights (I'm going to Wales in 2 weeks, by boat). I didn't know about that before going to Scotland 3 years ago. I hadn't any meds to take so I spent the 2 hours and a half flight believing that I was going to die. Horrible. And affairs like the Air France crash don't help me. I know the odds (500 deads last year for 2.500.000 people transported by plane) but it's a deep ingrained feeling, it's instinctive, like some old chromosomes reminding me that man wasn't meant to fly.
Sorry, got a little sidetracked.

Ha. I refuse to feel bad for Zoe's "dowdiness." You're making out with Quinto (although he does nothing for me, others seem to disagree), having conversations with Pine while you're both in your underwear, chillin' out onset with Karl Urban, etc. If she'd had scenes with Bana I could officially hate her.

Quinto does nothing for me as Quinto. As Spock, that's a whole other thing

Wolverine is not really comparable. It had Huge Jackman, so the entire female population of the world will go to see it.

Hon', keep it to yourself!

I answered to that post and didn't even notice the Freudian Slip

 

[Deckerd]

It wasn't Freudian. I don't make that kind of mistook.

 

[Australis]

Iasius, thanks for saving me having to make that exact same post to 3DMasher about his inflammatory language, the irony being it was in the exact same post where he said he didn't use inflammatory language.

 

[3D Master]

Iasius, thanks for saving me having to make that exact same post to 3DMasher about his inflammatory language, the irony being it was in the exact same post where he said he didn't use inflammatory language.

Except that it wasn't inflammatory, it was cold hard truth.

 

[Australis]

It was inflammatory.

You know it. I know it. Iasius, M'Sharak, saddestmoon, pookha, and a whole buncha other know it.

And it's a damn shame, because as I said, you make good points, then colour them in ugly, half hidden epithets.

 

[3D Master]

It was inflammatory.

You know it. I know it. Iasius, M'Sharak, saddestmoon, pookha, and a whole buncha other know it.

And it's a damn shame, because as I said, you make good points, then colour them in ugly, half hidden epithets.

It wasn't inflammatory, it was cold hard fact to get you to think. To simply use your logic, and leave your feelings, and impressions burned into your brain by flash and loud sound at the door.

Are the reviewers points correct: yes.

Are they bad: yes.

Does that diminish the movie - if there's even anything to diminish: yes.

If you're not capable of doing this, well...

 

[Therin of Andor]

Does that diminish the movie.

Not at all. Similarly, many fans rejected ST IV at the time. It, too, was hugely successful with general audiences, and well-liked by a lot of diehards. But it still angered many others, who saw it as a dumbing down of Star Trek.

I enjoyed JJ's ST movie very much. And ST IV. And I've also enjoyed some of ST's most popular episodes.

 

[Australis]

It was inflammatory.

You know it. I know it. Iasius, M'Sharak, saddestmoon, pookha, and a whole buncha other know it.

And it's a damn shame, because as I said, you make good points, then colour them in ugly, half hidden epithets.

It wasn't inflammatory, it was cold hard fact to get you to think. To simply use your logic, and leave your feelings, and impressions burned into your brain by flash and loud sound at the door.

Are the reviewers points correct: yes.

Are they bad: yes.

Does that diminish the movie - if there's even anything to diminish: yes.

If you're not capable of doing this, well...

The highlighted bits are what I'm talking about. AGAIN.

Tell you what. Find the post you feel is most representative of your point of view, what you thought of the film, what points didn't work for you... and the same tone of voice too. Copy it, and take it to TNZ and post it in the TrekXI discussion thread there. Then we'll talk about it.

 

[3D Master]

Does that diminish the movie.

Not at all. Similarly, many fans rejected ST IV at the time. It, too, was hugely successful with general audiences, and well-liked by a lot of diehards. But it still angered many others, who saw it as a dumbing down of Star Trek.

I enjoyed JJ's ST movie very much. And ST IV. And I've also enjoyed some of ST's most popular episodes.

Ah, so plotholes, bullshit characterization, assholes for a main character, and on and on and on, does not a diminish a movie to you?

I believe I said something about functional mind, but... it doesn't really seem necessary; the post rather speaks for itself.

It was inflammatory.

You know it. I know it. Iasius, M'Sharak, saddestmoon, pookha, and a whole buncha other know it.

And it's a damn shame, because as I said, you make good points, then colour them in ugly, half hidden epithets.

It wasn't inflammatory, it was cold hard fact to get you to think. To simply use your logic, and leave your feelings, and impressions burned into your brain by flash and loud sound at the door.

Are the reviewers points correct: yes.

Are they bad: yes.

Does that diminish the movie - if there's even anything to diminish: yes.

If you're not capable of doing this, well...

The highlighted bits are what I'm talking about. AGAIN.

Tell you what. Find the post you feel is most representative of your point of view, what you thought of the film, what points didn't work for you... and the same tone of voice too. Copy it, and take it to TNZ and post it in the TrekXI discussion thread there. Then we'll talk about it.

Again, it's the cold hard facts. We were talking about a review and the points being raised, and I said these points were correct - they are - the points were things that are bad - and bad things diminish a movie. This is not rocket science, this basic elementary.

You got a movie that has no plot holes at all.

Then you have essentially the same movie, but a slight difference in writing and slight changes in plot and there are all types of plot holes now.

Which movie is better; the one with or the one without the plot holes?

The answer should be bloody obvious: the one without.

That's all that was said; that bad things in a movie, diminish a movie. If you can't grasp this simple basic fact, if you can't grasp, that above the movie with the plotholes is the lesser version of the movie, your mind is NOT fully functional. This is not inflammatory, this is simple basic elementary logic.

There is nothing inflammatory or offensive about it.

 

[Trilliam]

Again, it's the cold hard facts. We were talking about a review and the points being raised, and I said these points were correct - they are - the points were things that are bad - and bad things diminish a movie. This is not rocket science, this basic elementary.

You got a movie that has no plot holes at all.

Then you have essentially the same movie, but a slight difference in writing and slight changes in plot and there are all types of plot holes now.

Which movie is better; the one with or the one without the plot holes?

The answer should be bloody obvious: the one without.

That's all that was said; that bad things in a movie, diminish a movie. If you can't grasp this simple basic fact, if you can't grasp, that above the movie with the plotholes is the lesser version of the movie, your mind is NOT fully functional. This is not inflammatory, this is simple basic elementary logic.

There is nothing inflammatory or offensive about it.

What movie, in the history of movie making, let alone Trek movies, has absolutely no plot holes?

 

[Michael]

He's been in three good movies: XMen, X2, and the Prestige. The rest were pretty awful.

You definitely need to see The Fountain! Great, great movie with wonderful acting by Hugh Jackman.

 

[Emher]

I'm still standing by that word of mouth is working in Star Trek's favor, even outside of the US. I went to see it a second time on thursday, almost a month after release, and the room was packed! I can't remember seeing that with other films, even the really big blockbusters.

 

[3D Master]

Again, it's the cold hard facts. We were talking about a review and the points being raised, and I said these points were correct - they are - the points were things that are bad - and bad things diminish a movie. This is not rocket science, this basic elementary.

You got a movie that has no plot holes at all.

Then you have essentially the same movie, but a slight difference in writing and slight changes in plot and there are all types of plot holes now.

Which movie is better; the one with or the one without the plot holes?

The answer should be bloody obvious: the one without.

That's all that was said; that bad things in a movie, diminish a movie. If you can't grasp this simple basic fact, if you can't grasp, that above the movie with the plotholes is the lesser version of the movie, your mind is NOT fully functional. This is not inflammatory, this is simple basic elementary logic.

There is nothing inflammatory or offensive about it.

What movie, in the history of movie making, let alone Trek movies, has absolutely no plot holes?

And exactly what has that got to do with my post?

 

[Trilliam]

You were asking which was the better movie - the one with plot holes or with out. I was merely asking you to name any movie (Trek or otherwise) without plot holes. Are any of the Trek movies plot hole free?

 

[3D Master]

You were asking which was the better movie - the one with plot holes or with out. I was merely asking you to name any movie (Trek or otherwise) without plot holes. Are any of the Trek movies plot hole free?

No, you were trying to obfuscate the point with a pointless question to try and deflect from the issue at hand.

Of course, the fact that you felt the need to deflect the issue hand, does show you do understand which of the two movies are better, and that plotholes are bad and diminish a movie.

 

[Trilliam]

Actually, I was having some fun with you, while taking a 15 minute break from studying.


Apart from Nemesis, I have enjoyed all Trek movies (incl STV) - for what they are, plot holes and all - a few hours of fun and diversion. That's it, no more, no less.