Faith of the Heart
- Thread starter RobertScorpio
- Start date
RobertScorpio
Pariah
Augustus said:
Thanks.
It's interesting that around 80% on this board liked the new movie well enough, STXI is succesful and a box office hit yet those few who don't like it feel the need to open thread after thread just to tell everyone how much they hate it.
I believe it was Paramount's desire to cut fandom's biggest critics off at the knees. I am glad they did it; it was long over due IMO. I called this movie a giant (and I don't want to get warned again for repeating it) aimed at old time fans.
If you wonder what I meant? Do you know what it is called when you clean out your bowels with a bottle? Thats what I said this movie was going to be way back last year...and oooooooo...MODS didn't like that at all.
But its true..thats what is happening and, wow, it feels good!!!
Rob
First you call me a shitter in the Kirk's promotion thread and now here a pisser...God I love the friggin Brits...such a way with words eh? But pissing up a rope would be illogical sir, down it OK and I like the feel or urine in me boots so I'm with that....shall I send you video of it? PM me your email address.
Actually there are way more pointless threads...such as this one, with praise for the movie. Positive outweighs the negative greatly.....even though your positive about the movie you're just a negative nancy who really is NO FUN...so just lighen up huh! You act like there's a firebottle up your ass --- which is understandably unpleasant so I'll cut you some slack old chap.
So you have nothing but *good* things to say about the movie...! Good for you!! But you can't expect everybody to share that opinion...as I've said I liked the movie fine...but of course it could of been better...but I liked it way more than I thought I would. So then...you quoted my masterpiece line....Do you think this movie is a masterpiece then....and not one friggin thing could of been done different?
Oh and PS without "complainers" like me then you wouldn't be able to go off on your little rants...and we wouldn't want to lose that for....that's entertainment!
This is exactly how I feel...I don't think I "bash" the movie....bashing would be from someone who doesn't like it, which is not me...but I'm not up JJ's ass either like so many others....why would I be?? Do I own stock at Paramount...uh no...am I related to JJ...uh no...so why be so loyal to a director that hasn't really done much anyway.
And yes it was good fun sci-fi or not...general good fun...but since I'm a Trek fan I was hoping for a little more and expecting a lot less...so at the end of the day I'm pleased....because as I've said above I didn't expect to like it so much....but I will point shit out that I didn't like...I have not and will not drink the Kool-aid.
Jackson_Roykirk;3044799[/QUOTE said:
Thank you for being honest with your opinion...It is OK to say you don't like aspects of the movie and still enjoy the damn movie. You say one wrong thing here that the "lovers" don't like and they're all over you like flies on shit.
Agree about the character interaction...but there could of been a lot more of it in this film, there was some...I saw great potential......I would of really, really enjoyed seeing that....next one just has to be like that...Has to!!!
Augustus said:
It's interesting that around 80% on this board liked the new movie well enough, STXI is succesful and a box office hit yet those few who don't like it feel the need to open thread after thread just to tell everyone how much they hate it.
I believe it was Paramount's desire to cut fandom's biggest critics off at the knees. I am glad they did it; it was long over due IMO. I called this movie a giant (and I don't want to get warned again for repeating it) aimed at old time fans.
If you wonder what I meant? Do you know what it is called when you clean out your bowels with a bottle? Thats what I said this movie was going to be way back last year...and oooooooo...MODS didn't like that at all.
But its true..thats what is happening and, wow, it feels good!!!
Rob
I must address this issue of Paramount wanting to "cut" longtime fans out...or "dispose" of them.....do you hear yourselves and how ridiculous that sounds? They went mainstream to MAKE MONEY...period and amen.
That is the one reason...that is the only reason.
Augustus said:
It's interesting that around 80% on this board liked the new movie well enough, STXI is succesful and a box office hit yet those few who don't like it feel the need to open thread after thread just to tell everyone how much they hate it.
And what about all the new threads about everything that's loved?? What about that?? That's OK?? You guys want to squash dissent...and on the day of the Tiananmen Square anniversary too...it's like China in here...
Without any dissent then where is the debate and exchange of ideas?
What's the point of the message board then...just go join a fan club.
So please if you're tired of seeing the same complaints etc...you (not you personally) should just move on to the next thread or post.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
Jackson_Roykirk;3044799[/QUOTE said:
Thank you for being honest with your opinion...It is OK to say you don't like aspects of the movie and still enjoy the damn movie. You say one wrong thing here that the "lovers" don't like and they're all over you like flies on shit.
Agree about the character interaction...but there could of been a lot more of it in this film, there was some...I saw great potential......I would of really, really enjoyed seeing that....next one just has to be like that...Has to!!!
Augustus said:
It's interesting that around 80% on this board liked the new movie well enough, STXI is succesful and a box office hit yet those few who don't like it feel the need to open thread after thread just to tell everyone how much they hate it.
I believe it was Paramount's desire to cut fandom's biggest critics off at the knees. I am glad they did it; it was long over due IMO. I called this movie a giant (and I don't want to get warned again for repeating it) aimed at old time fans.
If you wonder what I meant? Do you know what it is called when you clean out your bowels with a bottle? Thats what I said this movie was going to be way back last year...and oooooooo...MODS didn't like that at all.
But its true..thats what is happening and, wow, it feels good!!!
Rob
I must address this issue of Paramount wanting to "cut" longtime fans out...or "dispose" of them.....do you hear yourselves and how ridiculous that sounds? They went mainstream to MAKE MONEY...period and amen.
That is the one reason...that is the only reason.
And I don't dispute that. And what did NOT going mainstream get us? Nemesis and Insurrection. No money coming in means no Star Trek movies. It got Berman axed. We are where we are because of Nemesis and the flop known as Enterprise.
TREK XI has erased the bitter taste of both those 'valentines' to the fans..thank GOD. When I was at TREK XI,with my 15 year old daughter, and saw other young girls, her age, seeing this movie, I knew right there and then that some "hardcore" fans would see teenager girls going to this movie as a bad sign...
Well...JJ..KEEP the bad signs coming!!!! Star Trek is COOOOOOL again, brotha. Let these hardcore worship at the feet of TMP. Get them some NODOZE while you're at it.
Rob
^^ Ok then so we agree...!!! Trek went mainstream to make money and that is the only reason. They made Nemesis and Insurrection to make money....that didn't happen but that was the goal. I have no problem with mainstreaming Trek...to me it's always been mainstream anyway...Star Trek has not resided on the fringes of society here....it has influenced us greatly whether you like Trek or not....
This is where I'm at. Did I enjoy the movie thoroughly? Yes. Do I think it's the best thing for the franchise right now? Yes. Would I liked to have been in the room to make suggestions and improvements? Hell yes. But I'm not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I'll say this for Abrams: he's not a pushover, and he knows enough to hire good people in front of and behind the camera. I think he has the potential to be a great director.
I think it's significant that Spielberg is one of Abrams' idols. Back in the day, people thought Spielberg was only good for blockbusters, too.
Gah. TMI. Dial back the personal stuff, please, both of you.
Have you got anything concrete to which can point in support of that belief? Without it, that really comes off as being a lot more like taunting posters who were critical of the movie than I like to see here.Augustus said:
It's interesting that around 80% on this board liked the new movie well enough, STXI is succesful and a box office hit yet those few who don't like it feel the need to open thread after thread just to tell everyone how much they hate it.
I believe it was Paramount's desire to cut fandom's biggest critics off at the knees. I am glad they did it; it was long over due IMO.
Still not wild about it, to be honest -- it's too much like baiting. The enema analogy was unnecessary the first time and was not in need of being repeated.
Thanks for once again giving an example of the general inability of the haters to argue properly without personal attacks or logical fallacies.
The "masterpiece" line is a straw man, pure and simple. There are maybe two or three individuals out there who have called this movie a "masterpiece" or "perfect" as hyperbole in response to the incredibly hyperbolic attacks and criticism leveled by the haters. The rest of us have said mostly that the movie is great, we enjoyed it, and have responded specifically to complaints.
The people who disliked the movie have set up an echo chamber around here whereby they feed off of each other and come to the mistaken belief that they're anything more than a tiny scrap of an elitist fanatic minority or that their opinions are somehow more valid than the massively positive critical and fan response to the movie. It's patently absurd of you to complain about these positive responses while setting up a straw man of nonexistent people who say it's a "masterpiece".
I don't expect anyone to share my opinion, but when I see large numbers of people sharing it and a handful of people railing against it, I feel rather more secure in thinking the handful are incorrect. I feel especially secure upon reading post after post of idiotic whining and elitist fan-trolling.
EDIT: Also, I have never called this poster anything. I prefer to refrain from personal attacks unless someone has already repeatedly attacked me. I asked him to stop crapping on another thread with his irrelevant comments, and here I used a slightly more colorful variant of "Go jump in a lake". Incidentally, if anyone has other variants on this phrase in English or other languages, such as "Go play in traffic" or "Go lay tiles on the sea floor" please PM them to me as I am collecting them for linguistic research.
^^^ you're not offending me...I thought the "don't shit here" statement and the "piss up a rope" were pretty funny. PLUS, I really don't take most of this that seriously anyway....I like to have fun! LOL I personally attacked you...really? Go back for another read mate. And surely you're not calling me "hater" right? I understand you want to make a general I hate haters statement...but you're not directing that at me right....? And what is the big deal with having a few people disagree with you? I bet there would be more dissent if the "lovers" didn't all decend on the "hater" like a pack of rabid fans.....and If you're so secure in your opinon ...who cares what the haters think!!! No matter if nobody agrees with me I'll still say what I feel...I don't need to be a sheep. And you are acting as if this movie is perfect....that's why I asked you, do you have any complaint about the movie...anything at all...and you didn't answer that.
For the love of all that is good and precious in the world, will you please stop abusing ellipses?
Maybe you aren't familiar with the idiom "thread crapping". It's coming into a thread about something and dropping an irrelevant or inflammatory statement to disrupt the conversation. It has very little to do with excrement; it is a figurative idiom.
I have never once acted or spoken like the movie was perfect, so stop accusing me of doing that.
Your personal attacks are clearly so. In this post alone you have indirectly called me rabid, unable to deal with dissent, and a sheep.
All this back and forth is
I totally get what you're saying. I too had faith that JJ and crew would deliver and it was well placed faith. But JJ also earned my trust by establishing a track record prior to taking the reins of Star Trek.
However I dont feel he (they) need to do a Khan element. They should really just give us something original (if thats possible) If they do redux Khan or incorporate him some how I'll go along with it until I'm unentertained while in the theater seat. But there are so many other better possibilities.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
I totally get what you're saying. I too had faith that JJ and crew would deliver and it was well placed faith. But JJ also earned my trust by establishing a track record prior to taking the reins of Star Trek.
However I dont feel he (they) need to do a Khan element. They should really just give us something original (if thats possible) If they do redux Khan or incorporate him some how I'll go along with it until I'm unentertained while in the theater seat. But there are so many other better possibilities.
Thanks XXTC..
Khan would be the safe way to go, and less original, I totally agree. But The Dark Knight threw the Joker out again, and that was a 1989 movie the first time, Khan 1982. Over twenty-seven years have passed since Khan. Yet, for some reason, all these years later, Khan still resonates with the regular person out there. As a Producer it makes perfect since to do it again.
Although I predict they will revisit khan, for all the reasons I have stated, it wouldnt be my personal choice, though I would understand if they did.
For me? I do believe that the next movie must be made personal to KIRK (just as Khan was). I am not sure how you do that, in a new way (look how Nemesis turned out). But Kirk's very life must be put at risk and if they don't use Khan, i think they (JJ and others) will do this by other means.
Rob
However I dont feel he (they) need to do a Khan element. They should really just give us something original (if thats possible) If they do redux Khan or incorporate him some how I'll go along with it until I'm unentertained while in the theater seat. But there are so many other better possibilities.
Thanks XXTC..
Khan would be the safe way to go, and less original, I totally agree. But The Dark Knight threw the Joker out again, and that was a 1989 movie the first time, Khan 1982. Over twenty-seven years have passed since Khan. Yet, for some reason, all these years later, Khan still resonates with the regular person out there. As a Producer it makes perfect since to do it again.
Although I predict they will revisit khan, for all the reasons I have stated, it wouldnt be my personal choice, though I would understand if they did.
For me? I do believe that the next movie must be made personal to KIRK (just as Khan was). I am not sure how you do that, in a new way (look how Nemesis turned out). But Kirk's very life must be put at risk and if they don't use Khan, i think they (JJ and others) will do this by other means.
Rob
We can't be comparing Trek and Batman directly. Batman is a crime fighter, he's nothing without criminals. The villains are part of the overall story and the Joker is his nemesis, even a part of himself. So you can't reboot it without these main characters.
Kirk isn't a madman fighter, he's a starship captain. You can't reboot Trek without the Enterprise, without the crew but anything else goes. Blowing up Vulcan was completely new and it worked out. There is no need to have Khan at all.
The only way to bring him back, anyway, is to redo the exact same story. They found him floating in space and drop him on Ceti Alpha V. The movie is a reboot, not a redo.
Kirk isn't a madman fighter, he's a starship captain. You can't reboot Trek without the Enterprise, without the crew but anything else goes. Blowing up Vulcan was completely new and it worked out. There is no need to have Khan at all.
The only way to bring him back, anyway, is to redo the exact same story. They found him floating in space and drop him on Ceti Alpha V. The movie is a reboot, not a redo.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
Actually, you wont like this, but this is how you do it. They find Khan in TREK 12. He tries to take over the ship..he escapes. (no ceti-alpha whatever) Then in TREK 13 he comes back for his Wrath...I wouldn't do it, but it has built in aspects that I think JJ likes. And, again, it, I think, would make lots of money.
Rob
I confess I see no signs of this in the movie at all. If anything, I would say the opposite. The film had some pretty strong "fanwanky" elements, in fact you might say that the whole plot was built around a gargantuan "fanwank" or "nod to the fans" or whatever.
I actually think the desire to respect continuity and tie the film to Trek's past came pretty close to ruining it, as it is responsible for the film's most glaring flaws. The irony, of course, is that the inclusion of Spock Prime did nothing whatsoever to assuage those who in theory should have appreciated it most.
I'm extremely glad this movie has been a success, but my prevailing sentiment is that it would have been even better had "continuity" been neglected entirely for a straight-forward reboot.
At any rate, the idea that this movie was intentionally made to piss off long time fans strikes me as absurd. If anything, all signs suggest that, at some point in the development process, the writers and producers thought they were going to be more reliant on longtime fans than ended up being the case.
Lots of good points made in these posts. Thanks for starting this discussion thread, even if the title was marginally misleading.
