This is an observational post that I wanted to bring to light regarding some things I have noticed across the Trekkie interwebs. One of the things that I like to do is peruse other forums and see what folks are talking about. A couple of other forums I am even apart of, and I'm sure the same can be said about several other members.
Of course, it's hard to avoid temptation and to check to see what others are saying regarding the new film as discussion is in high gear. Now of course there are detractors who will go to any lengths to bring the film down. I'm okay with other people's opinions, it's just when they start backing up their opinions with what they may perceive as facts which may be in question that I may take issue with.
One of the more popular criticisms were of supposed "plot holes," which a few of those people are more or less clinging on to at the moment. It's gotten to levels to where I think some actually have lost sight of what a plot hole is. It's also amusing because the same people will claim it's dumbed down, yet charge an allegation of a supposed "plot hole" that actually was answered or almost "in our faces" and would have been answered by simply paying attention to the film. I'm about expecting someone to say "There was a major plot hole because the glass was half full in one shot and 3/4 full in the other." It's just silly.
However with the alleged plot holes that are usually posted, they are just as fast debunked or cleared up. For instance, one of the biggest of these supposed "plot holes" is "Why didn't Earth have any defenses?" However, only moments earlier we saw Nero interrogating Pike for frequencies to the border protection grids, specifically those surrounding Earth. It admittedly didn't hit me at first (it admittedly wasn't an issue that crossed my mind either,) but of course putting these two pieces together without them having to repeat why Earth's defenses were down, along with a "wink" to the camera, allowed me to start seeing new and clever elements to the story telling. Problem solved. There are a few other moments like this.
It got me thinking, is this film actually among the only true "Thinking Man's" installments of Star Trek? Is this film actually intelligent, not because some "message" it tried to convey or even with the plot itself necessarily, but because it requires a certain level of thinking for ourselves to figure it certain elements and it's something that perhaps some are not used to? I also think that to the writer's credits that some of the science that they did use actually relate to real science theories that we have today, and perhaps provides a new way thinking of about time travel and black holes (now to be fair, even I can see some stretching was done for the superdupernova.) As a side note, it always amuses me when some of those same people proclaim for a fact what a black hole can and can't do, almost as though they've been to one! If we knew everything it could do, there would be no theories regarding these, and certainly we would have no need to keep studying them.
Now someone may charge that because they didn't spell out everything for us, that it's "bad storytelling." However, I think perhaps the writers gave the audience the ability to put pieces of the story together for themselves. And you know what? I liked it. I liked that upon repeat viewings that more and more layers are discovered and having "Eureka" moments for any thing that maybe did cross my mind. I enjoyed searching for little clues here and there that helped strengthen a point in the film. Furthermore, the answers are found within this movie (as in, "not missing,") but unlike past Star Trek they didn't ram it down our throats.
I want to clear up that I'm not saying that certain elements were "brilliant," etc. However, I certainly think that the charges that the film supposedly had "So many plot holes" (which the same people on these other places have never been able to prove) or was "Dumbed down" are bit extreme and without merit, especially when perhaps the film itself suggests otherwise.
Thoughts?
Of course, it's hard to avoid temptation and to check to see what others are saying regarding the new film as discussion is in high gear. Now of course there are detractors who will go to any lengths to bring the film down. I'm okay with other people's opinions, it's just when they start backing up their opinions with what they may perceive as facts which may be in question that I may take issue with.
One of the more popular criticisms were of supposed "plot holes," which a few of those people are more or less clinging on to at the moment. It's gotten to levels to where I think some actually have lost sight of what a plot hole is. It's also amusing because the same people will claim it's dumbed down, yet charge an allegation of a supposed "plot hole" that actually was answered or almost "in our faces" and would have been answered by simply paying attention to the film. I'm about expecting someone to say "There was a major plot hole because the glass was half full in one shot and 3/4 full in the other." It's just silly.
However with the alleged plot holes that are usually posted, they are just as fast debunked or cleared up. For instance, one of the biggest of these supposed "plot holes" is "Why didn't Earth have any defenses?" However, only moments earlier we saw Nero interrogating Pike for frequencies to the border protection grids, specifically those surrounding Earth. It admittedly didn't hit me at first (it admittedly wasn't an issue that crossed my mind either,) but of course putting these two pieces together without them having to repeat why Earth's defenses were down, along with a "wink" to the camera, allowed me to start seeing new and clever elements to the story telling. Problem solved. There are a few other moments like this.
It got me thinking, is this film actually among the only true "Thinking Man's" installments of Star Trek? Is this film actually intelligent, not because some "message" it tried to convey or even with the plot itself necessarily, but because it requires a certain level of thinking for ourselves to figure it certain elements and it's something that perhaps some are not used to? I also think that to the writer's credits that some of the science that they did use actually relate to real science theories that we have today, and perhaps provides a new way thinking of about time travel and black holes (now to be fair, even I can see some stretching was done for the superdupernova.) As a side note, it always amuses me when some of those same people proclaim for a fact what a black hole can and can't do, almost as though they've been to one! If we knew everything it could do, there would be no theories regarding these, and certainly we would have no need to keep studying them.
Now someone may charge that because they didn't spell out everything for us, that it's "bad storytelling." However, I think perhaps the writers gave the audience the ability to put pieces of the story together for themselves. And you know what? I liked it. I liked that upon repeat viewings that more and more layers are discovered and having "Eureka" moments for any thing that maybe did cross my mind. I enjoyed searching for little clues here and there that helped strengthen a point in the film. Furthermore, the answers are found within this movie (as in, "not missing,") but unlike past Star Trek they didn't ram it down our throats.
I want to clear up that I'm not saying that certain elements were "brilliant," etc. However, I certainly think that the charges that the film supposedly had "So many plot holes" (which the same people on these other places have never been able to prove) or was "Dumbed down" are bit extreme and without merit, especially when perhaps the film itself suggests otherwise.
Thoughts?