My Star Trek review
- Thread starter 3D Master
- Start date
- Status
It's just a fact that 3d has posted bile and hatred since way before the movie came out that we all expected him to post something like this. His Review is neither earth shattering, or Objective which a journalist is supposed to be when writing an article. His review isn't a review it's an op/ed piece and if he spent more time being an engineer like he claims he is and less time ranting on a film we'd have warp drive by now.
I have a question for 3D Master. Did you go into the cinema with a notebook? Or do you have eidetic memory?
I suspect he has seen it many more times than just the once. Probably not legally.
I'm reading it. I think your summarizing this review as "Why didn't they produce my fan-script" is unfair. I'd summarize it as "a detailed (if somewhat overblown and exaggerated) breakdown of plotholes and illogical story writing". Pointing out gaping big plot holes surely can't be "nitpicking"?
My favorite part of the movie is Kirk riding his motorcycle up to the dock, looking up at the Enterprise. Deciding to have the ship built on Earth was a great artistic decision as well as very smart - true Star Trek at its best. 
Well, I'll give you that...I agree it's a bit ranty.
If you were familiar with all the ridiculous reasons he came up with why the movie would suck before it came out because things weren't EXACTLY the way he wanted them to be (The Enterprise being built on the ground being the big one) I think you'd understand where I'm coming from.
There's nothing wrong with pointing these things out, but they've ALL been discussed at length before, and individuals can and have decided whether they're really plot holes or not. Anyone who worries this much about so-called plot holes can not have enjoyed any fiction of any kind, ever.
Wait... so did he like it or not? 
What you say sounds quite reasonable. Again, I acknowledge that I don't spend time in this forum, so, yes, I'm unaware of any prior history or the focus of previous discussions. Of course, that means I can only judge this review by the standards of itself alone, and despite being...a little over the top...okay, make that quite a bit over the top, definitely...I don't feel it has said anything particularly unfair. All the plotholes it mentioned are genuinely there. Of course, as you say, every fiction has plotholes, and certainly many people don't care. I know most people liked this film, plotholes be damned. However, the content of this review makes sense to me, and only being able to judge it on what I'm reading, I can't help but feel it has its place, if only for people like me who rarely visit this forum to pop in and read.
Wait... so did he like it or not?
As I understood from his fantastic review he loved it and can't wait for the sequel.
So... in 1,000,000 words or less... did you like the movie?
And we're trying to point out to you that his Review while seeming fair really isn't. He went into seeing and reviewing the movie with an overwhelming bias and pretty much has said he wasn't going to like it in the past.
We're just trying to give you the information you need to weigh his opinion of the film accordingly. That's all
Wait... so did he like it or not?
As I understood from his fantastic review he loved it and can't wait for the sequel.
Y'know, that's what I thought, what with all the CAPS he used.
YES!
A lot of it made sense to me, as well, to be sure, but they strike me as only the sort of thing that would bother someone determined not to like the film. He's clearly not prepared to make any kind of leap like "ok that wasn't explained in dialogue but it would make sense if... etc etc." which is often necessary in the other incarnations of Trek, as in any other fiction. And I maintain that criticising any Trek for it's technical aspects is ludicrous. The tech changes every week, it always has on the show, and the ship runs by magic. You simply cannot argue engineering and get away with it. Things like "How can you record a log entry onto a communicator?" I can record a log entry onto my mobile phone now if I really want - those are the sort of criticisms that are stupid.
Oh, believe me, no-one could miss the overwhelming bias!
The points he made were fair, though, even if his reason for making them wasn't.Paramount's splitting his money with the theater as we speak...
Well, I have no argument with this.
Amen
These kinds of remarks are mysterious to me, because I have no trouble following the camera work or seeing what's going on at any time. The movie looks fine and perfectly enjoyable to me. And I like what they're doing with these techniques, even though it's maybe a bit too tricky a bit too often.
Didn't have the problem with "Cloverfield" either.
Granted I don't get car-sick, either. There are members of my family who do, and they've demonstrated on more than one occasion just how real the experience - specifically, nausea - is to them. It's not an experience I've had myself, though, or want to have.
- Status
