Do you intend to post this review here at TBBS? If so, why?
Among other places. I think the StarTrekXIsucks bloogspot would be good place as well.
Preaching to the converted? Makes as much sense as anything.
I wouldn't be preaching, I'd just be posting one more.
Really? Do you routinely question the intelligence of people you respect, claiming that they lack "functional minds" if they disagree with you?
I have done no such thing.
Really? Claiming people lack "functional minds" because they don't agree with you / your interpretation of "facts" isn't questioning their intelligence?
I have done no such thing.
Not to mention your extensive track record of calling people idiots, thickheaded, incapable of reading, and so on.
The only people I have ever called incapable of reading, idiots and thickheaded are those who were incapable of reading, were idiots and thickheaded. I had nothing to do with whether they agreed with me, it had something to do with whether they could read. These are people who claimed I wrote the exact opposite of what I actually wrote. And even after describing what I wrote in different words they still went on as if I wrote the exact opposite of what I wrote. (Which in fact, were people attempting to discredit my by misrepresenting what I wrote deliberately because they couldn't defeat the facts I raised and my arguments. Thus they tried to attack my person to try to diminish the veracity of my earlier posts.)
So you don't condescend, except when you do.
So the fact that other people have different ideas of what represent "bad things" in a movie means nothing to you? Your idea(s) of "bad things" is / are the only ones that exist? There's no room for other viewpoints? The rain is wet / bad things in a movie "analogy" has limited credibility given that people have different ideas of what constitute "bad things",
A plot hole is a plot hole is a plot hole. Bad characterization is bad. Lack of a coherent structure is bad. Etc.
There is no way to have different ideas of what bad things are. No critic is going to criticize a movie for having no plot holes.
not to mention different degrees of willingness to overlook / get worked up about them.
How wet you're willing to be, has no bearing on the fact that rain is wet.
How many bad things you're willing to overlook has no bearing on the fact the bad things are there, and if the bad things weren't in there the movie would have been better.
Once again: "Bad things in a movie, make a movie less good", has nothing do with how good anyone considers a movie; or even how good any move as objectively as one can get is - it is a simple, generic piece of elementary.
Or people don't see things the same way and are entitled to their own viewpoints. Disagreeing with you isn't a bad thing. They are other interpretations of what's going on here.
There is no agreeing and disagreeing about a fact. It's a fact, plain and simple. Rain is wet is a fact. Bad things in a movie diminish the movie is a fact. A chair is an object is a fact. Anyone attempting to disagree with a fact doesn't have functional mind.
And the fact that some people don't consider this movie a "pile of shit" is irrelevant? The fact that you consider it a "pile of shit" is the only relevant factor here?
Of course other people's opinions are irrelevant. I can't stand coffee. But if a majority like coffee I have to stuff the disgusting stuff down my throat? On a related note, I like tea - but because a majority like coffee I'm just going to have to shrug and accept if they remove tea altogether?
Sorry, that's too ludicrous to offer any further response.
There's nothing ludicrous about it; it's simple logic. You're asking me why I'm speaking my mind in a place where the majority doesn't agree with me. Obviously that means you find it a bad thing to speak your mind when it goes against the majority. So what if the majority wants to kill you? You keep quiet then and let them? Or will you be fighting them with reason first, then scream bloody murder (and attempt to escape)? I'm betting you want keep quiet.
In other words, your opinion of "not going against the majority" is only in place when it is with something you don't find important and don't like "enough". Since Star Trek falls under the latter as you're expecting me not to go against the majority on it; you must not like Star Trek all that much.
So the whole "functional mind" thing was praise?
I have not questioned none of the minds who disagree with me. I've questioned the minds of those who wish to dispute facts like, "Chair is an object", "Rain is wet", and "Bad things in a movie diminish a movie."
Which is an entirely different thing. Disagreement has nothing to do with it. Irrational trying to dispute facts has.
I'm not being sarcastic. I'm genuinely curious as to why you devote so much time to challenging the views of a group of people for whom you clearly have little or no respect.
I'm challenging no one, I'm simply posting my point of view. But it seems I'm not allowed to. If one disagrees with a majority in this forum, one must shut up and say nothing.
To state that you're "not allowed" to post your point of view is arrant nonsense. If you look around you'll see that there are
plenty of people who didn't care for the movie. The difference is that they don't insult, patronise, belittle or condescend to those who did. (Of course, you claim you don't do those things either, but I'm not going to waste any more time on that.) They've presented their viewpoints in ways that have invited discussion rather than as absolutes immune to criticism or challenge. The problem isn't with your views,
3D Master; it's the presentation. Unfortunately for you, most people don't like being insulted and patronised and whether you recognise it or not that's pretty much your schtick around here.
I have done no such thing. The whole thread above, we didn't even get to my views; we've only been discussing facts in evidence.
Facts should not require discussion. "Rain is wet" whether one likes it or not and there's no discussion about it. "A chair is an object" whether one likes it or not and there's no discussion about it. "Bad things in a movie diminish a movie" is a fact whether one likes it not, and there similarly should not be and should not have been a discussion about it.
If people irrationally dispute, or rather refuse to accept facts, there's no point in trying discuss anyone's opinion on the facts - which is why I haven't brought in and we never discussed any opinions and judgments on those facts. When people are trying to tell me that rain is not wet, I will voice why this is false, and will attempt to get it through their thick heads rain is indeed wet. And if they continue to refuse to accept it; I'll point out to them they're irrational at best. But I won't bother to go to talk opinions with them; because it doesn't matter.
