What Amazes Me

[EEE]

Actually I was referring to the single point that an altered timeline couldn't explain away for me... Nimoy's Spock would've at least searched for a way to correct the whole timeline the movie was based in/on. He's done it before (or was he just flat out jealous of Edith Keeler? *grin*). (wouldn't it be funny if they already filmed a Spock's timeline restoration and stored it way for when this version runs it's course? LOL)

​

But could he? The point of change is when the Narada arrives in the 23rd Century. He cant stop that because it "starts" in a different universe. He would have to travel to that universe and he can't do that. His other choice would be divert the Kelvin so it doesn't meet the Narada. But that could also change things. Or assemble a fleet to meet the Narada, again that could also change things.

He's Spock. He can come back from the dead. He can calculate time travel and cold engine starts. He's been known to actually kidnap people against their wishes, when he thought it was good for them. It's sci-fi. He can do ANYTHING. He could go back and actually avoid pissing off the biker Romulan. Or he could go back and make sure biker-Romulan's mommie doesn't drink so much Romulan ale and alter biker-Romulan's brain chemistry so he isn't so apt to anger over losing everything near and dear to him. He could suddenly have a half-brother who shares biker Romulan's pain. He could go to a pub and throw darts backwards in anticipation of a reversal of polarity of chroniton particles from interacting with a tachyon pulse caused by quantum flux torpedoes in Romulan biker gang asteroid mining companies actually owned by Ferrengi. The original Kirk and Spock can do ANYTHING. (they're bona-fide proven intergalactic larger-than-life heroes, you know! *grin*). OR he could influence an alternate reality and force an actor to hold out for a script written by an actual science fiction author. To quote Spock... "There are always possibilities."
"Fascinating**"


** - Bonus irrelevant quote at no extra charge to you the readers!

 

[Withers]

If Star Trek has shown us anything it's that they'll do whatever they want and find a way to explain (at some point.)

(wouldn't it be funny if they already filmed a Spock's timeline restoration and stored it way for when this version runs it's course? LOL)

That would be absolutely hysterical. Can you imagine now nuts the staff at Memory Alpha would go? I think doing things like that (expanding the STU for a few years and then collapsing it back onto itself) could be the new "norm" for the franchise by the time people look at Enterprise the way I look at, say, TOS (visually speaking.)

So, basically, I'm saying that one person can think it's a great movie, and another can think it's terrible, and they can both be right. Everyone just has different things that make up a great or terrible movie for them.​

I agree with you there and with most of your post. In you case you have a legitimate claim and I wouldn't argue that anything was "foul" about your interpretation or mindset going in. However there were (as there always seem to be) people who went into the movie expecting and wanting to dislike it for, as you said, pretty petty reasons. And they're not a small fringe group (within the fanbase anyway). It's the same folk who ask questions like "Any other TOSers giving up on Trek after the 09 film?" C'mon... that's not fair.

Can't anything new make it into the franchise without a decade of being lampooned by the "purists" from the 60's?


-Withers-​

​

 

[EEE]

Can't anything new make it into the franchise without a decade of being lampooned by the "purists" from the 60's?


-Withers-​

However there were (as there always seem to be) people who went into the movie expecting and wanting to dislike it for, as you said, pretty petty reasons. And they're not a small fringe group (within the fanbase anyway). It's the same folk who ask questions like "Any other TOSers giving up on Trek after the 09 film?" C'mon... that's not fair.
​

​

I find irony in my impression that those who hate Trek in any form, have really missed the overall (evolved) philosophy of Trek.

Hypothesis: I submit that if you hate any particular Trek, you don't "get" Trek at all.

 

[Withers]

I'd go along with you... with a few clarifications. There are elements of Trek I'm not a big fan of and there are series I like a lot more than others. I would only use the word "hate" in reference to any given Trek to describe a direction or specific episode plot. But even though I'm not a fan of TOS' visually I don't hate it. Even though Voyager and Enterprise have a bunch of things that disrupt my ability to suspend disbelief I don't hate them.

Pointing out their flaws is recognizing that there is a standard to live up to and certain elements of certain Trek's (which depends on who you ask) just don't do that. It's a fine line... but I'm not unwilling to say there might be things about Star Trek I just don't "get."

(Recitation of facts, though, I've got that down pat heh.)

-Withers-​

 

[Nerys Myk]

Actually I was referring to the single point that an altered timeline couldn't explain away for me... Nimoy's Spock would've at least searched for a way to correct the whole timeline the movie was based in/on. He's done it before (or was he just flat out jealous of Edith Keeler? *grin*). (wouldn't it be funny if they already filmed a Spock's timeline restoration and stored it way for when this version runs it's course? LOL)

​

But could he? The point of change is when the Narada arrives in the 23rd Century. He cant stop that because it "starts" in a different universe. He would have to travel to that universe and he can't do that. His other choice would be divert the Kelvin so it doesn't meet the Narada. But that could also change things. Or assemble a fleet to meet the Narada, again that could also change things.

He's Spock. He can come back from the dead. He can calculate time travel and cold engine starts. He's been known to actually kidnap people against their wishes, when he thought it was good for them. It's sci-fi. He can do ANYTHING. He could go back and actually avoid pissing off the biker Romulan. Or he could go back and make sure biker-Romulan's mommie doesn't drink so much Romulan ale and alter biker-Romulan's brain chemistry so he isn't so apt to anger over losing everything near and dear to him. He could suddenly have a half-brother who shares biker Romulan's pain. He could go to a pub and throw darts backwards in anticipation of a reversal of polarity of chroniton particles from interacting with a tachyon pulse caused by quantum flux torpedoes in Romulan biker gang asteroid mining companies actually owned by Ferrengi. The original Kirk and Spock can do ANYTHING. (they're bona-fide proven intergalactic larger-than-life heroes, you know! *grin*). OR he could influence an alternate reality and force an actor to hold out for a script written by an actual science fiction author. To quote Spock... "There are always possibilities."
"Fascinating**"


** - Bonus irrelevant quote at no extra charge to you the readers!

They couldn't save Edith. Or Mirirmanee.
And Spock has to get to the other Universe to change the Biker Romulan.

To tell the truth I dont like Kirk and Spock as larger than life heroes. I like the more down Earth and fallible versions in TOS.

 

[Withers]

They couldn't save Edith. Or Mirirmanee.
And Spock has to get to the other Universe to change the Biker Romulan.

As long as they wanted to do it they could do absolutely anything. I think the way it goes is they decide they're going to do something and the writing process is about explaining how/why. "Lets implode Vulcan." "Okay... how, and why?" *One Year Later* "Okay, we kind of have an idea on that. Let's move on." That's how it goes in my head anyway.

To tell the truth I dont like Kirk and Spock as larger than life heroes. I like the more down Earth and fallible versions in TOS.

For me it comes down to liking the seasoned versions of these characters (such as in Undiscovered Country) over the "90210" years but in a way I feel what you're saying too and it kind of goes along with I think.

(Promoted! I feel like a person now (since I would outrank Nog...)
-Withers-​

 

[Jeri]

It just amazes how willing so many true and loyal fans watched the movie for the sole purpose of jotting down flaws they could point to justify the dislike they had for it the minute the movie was announced and I thought, as this is my first day, that is what I would write my first thread about.

Not so many, in fact; check the grading thread stickied to the top of the forum, and you will see that by far the majority of fans did not do this.

There was another poll thread that asked only the old timers, of which I am one; and I think it was 78% said they loved or liked the movie.
​

 

[Aragorn]

It just amazes how willing so many true and loyal fans watched the movie for the sole purpose of jotting down flaws they could point to justify the dislike they had for it the minute the movie was announced and I thought, as this is my first day, that is what I would write my first thread about.
​

Since you're new to post here (though I don't know how long you've been lurking), they're not a majority -- they're just repetitively vocal about it. In fact, they'd agree with you that they are true and loyal fans, but are the only ones who know what real Star Trek is and anyone who disagrees is inferior and an idiot.

It must say something when you fully intend to hate something long before it's even made, continuously post about how much you will hate it, go see it with the intent to hate every minute of it, then come back here to boast about how right your self-fulfilling prophecy was. And then continue to spend all your time repeating yourself with these same posts bashing it and putting down others who like it.

In fact, you probably missed someone who did this with EVERY SINGLE EPISODE of Enterprise. And another one with Battlestar Galactica.

Like it, hate it, who cares? It's when you treat your opinion like a hard fact and make it your crusade that it becomes intolerable and laughable.

I think Voyager is by far the worst series, but I stopped watching it and didn't spend every waking moment bitching about it in the Voyager forum. It's just a waste of life to act like some of the trolls here.

 

[Withers]

Since you're new to post here (though I don't know how long you've been lurking), they're not a majority -- they're just repetitively vocal about it. In fact, they'd agree with you that they are true and loyal fans, but are the only ones who know what real Star Trek is and anyone who disagrees is inferior and an idiot.

I didn't mean only at this forum- but you're right, they aren't the majority. If they were the film wouldn't be anywhere near as popular as it is (especially amongst fans of previous incarnations.) Still, just what you described, happens and that it happens was the whole point of my writing this I suppose.

I'd also like to make mention of the fact that there's a difference between discussion and just bashing for no reason. You brought up Voyager (a forum where its possible you've seen some of my other posts) and how you don't spend every waking moment bitching about how you didn't like it. Well, that's good, and no one should do that.

Voyager was probably my least favorite of the series too... but I still liked it enough to have seen every episode enough times to talk about it with other fans, especially the things we disagree on. Since this a forum and (in the case of Voyager anyway) we're talking about something that is 10 years off the air shouldn't discussion, regardless of how heated or one side, be encouraged? If we just agreed we agree or agreed that we disagreed what would be the point of posting at all in the first place?

But back to 09 or nuTrek I guess is the term for it here- the idea that it happens at all in fandom that is so very different from any other any where out there is surprising to me. Maybe after all these years it shouldn't be but it is.


-Withers-​

 

[RookieBatman]

But back to 09 or nuTrek I guess is the term for it here- the idea that it happens at all in fandom that is so very different from any other any where out there is surprising to me. Maybe after all these years it shouldn't be but it is.
​

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that pointless only happens in Trek fandom? That's definitely not true. I'm not a huge presence in many other fan communities, but you can take a look just at the Stargate boards on this site, and there are people with the same kinds of nonconstructive comments.

 

[BurntSynapse]

I'm as demanding as anyone I know when it comes to what I deem as "good sci-fi."

This does not seem accurate, especially when you describe "not thinking" as an acceptable condition for assessors.

I know what constitutes a good story,

Do we agree that avoiding contradictions and overuse of cliche and miracles to advance the plot are minimal requirements?

what well executed special effects look like,

I don't think anyone can reasonably criticize the spectacular quality of the SFX in this film!

But the more I've read from so called "Star Trek purists" the better I'm able to see a larger picture.

Purists and reviewers with heavy bias are immaterial to whether the film rests on a badly conceptualized foundation, and that it presents a constant stream of bad dialog and internal contradictions, beginning with reports of "seeing" an anomaly, showing us on screen, and 10 seconds later reporting "it is still out of visual range".

DS9 was more fun to watch and more people wanted to like it. When you want to like something you'll make note of but ultimately let slide the details about missing collar pips and faulty registry numbers.

This is a good point - and had the story or message of ST09 been of some kind of value, like educational or providing admirable role models, I could have enjoyed it... Here in Patagonia, I had to go to a great deal of trouble to see it.

I think the same thing has happened to JJ's Star Trek only rather than deciding it wasn't fun to watch after seeing it the decision was made based upon what everybody knew the day it was announced. "It isn't the original cast and stuff won't look the same. Based on that I don't like the movie. Now I'm going to watch it to find out why."

The fact that some people object irrationally does not invalidate the reasonable criticism of those (like me) who were enthusiastic about Abrams reboot.

Arguments like "it didn't make sense that..." and "the use of (insert plot device) was lazy writing" are all rationalizations for a hatred

I would like to see that claim backed up, since I think it is false.

(This film) in the end, was good sci-fi.

I would like to see that claim backed up, since I think it is false.

Was it the trek we knew? No. It's different. Does that make it bad? Of course it doesn't.

Do we also agree that these similarly tell us nothing about whether it is good?

Stuff looked cool and the movie moved along at a pace that didn't bore me. I sat there and didn't think.

That seems hardly a compelling endorsement any serious reviewer would accept as valid.

I wasn't looking for flaws that would justify my prejudgment.

Neither was I!

Was it perfect? C'mon, of course it wasn't perfect.

The effects were fabulous, but the story and dialog PREVENTED me from enjoying it. I actually walked out at one point.

It also wasn't blasphemous, unwatchable garbage either.

I can accept that, as long as we stipulate such viewers must be ignorant or apathetic toward science, ethics, astronomy, medicine, physics, diplomacy, logic, etc.

It was good for what it was especially considering the source material.

Since the script/screenplay source material was written by military propagandists working only part time on it, I can accept that.

It just amazes how willing so many true and loyal fans watched the movie for the sole purpose of jotting down flaws they could point to justify the dislike they had for it

I would like to see this claim supported, because I think it is false. Please provide one single name of these "so many true and loyal fans" who did this.

 

[BillJ]

The Pro Trek 09 crowd is every bit as bad as the Anti Trek 09 crowd. Where one sees a pile of crap on the sidewalk with absolutely no redeeming value the other sees the Mona Lisa, something with absolutely no flaws. It's kinda disturbing to see people constantly get shouted down by the majority whenever they want to discuss perceived flaws in the film.

It was a flawed film with some good moments sprinkled throughout. I'm hopeful that Abrams and Company see this film as a learning experience and come back in 2012 with a great sequel.

 

[Aragorn]

I would like to see that claim backed up, since I think it is false.

Is this yet another motto for the "how dare you think differently than me" team?

 

[BurntSynapse]

I would like to see that claim backed up, since I think it is false.

Is this yet another motto for the "how dare you think differently than me" team?

Perhaps.
The "team" bit seems misleadingly biased, but your characterization of my statement as a question does seem to have merit, and I would answer your question by explaining that my "dare" is for Withers (or others) to provide evidence in support of an apparently dubious claim. If such evidence is presented, reasonable people are happy to change their mind, and begin supporting the no-longer-so-dubious claim with a justified level of certainty.

Changing one's position in the face of compelling evidence is simply logical.

 

[Devon]

It was a flawed film with some good moments sprinkled throughout.

To you at least (your Mona Lisa analogy and all,) but they are going to look and see that what they did worked for most everyone else who don't share that opinion.

 

[BurntSynapse]

The Pro Trek 09 crowd is every bit as bad as the Anti Trek 09 crowd. Where one sees a pile of crap on the sidewalk with absolutely no redeeming value the other sees the Mona Lisa, something with absolutely no flaws.

While there are many unreasonable opinions of the film, I think we are best served by focusing on reasonable merits and flaws based on good, generally-accepted standards for judging.

It's kinda disturbing to see people constantly get shouted down by the majority whenever they want to discuss perceived flaws in the film.

It is an indictment of our education and media systems IMO that they do not provide people with basic skills of logic for mental self-defense to protect against falsehoods, especially predatory ones.

It was a flawed film with some good moments sprinkled throughout.

100%

I'm hopeful that Abrams and Company see this film as a learning experience and come back in 2012 with a great sequel.

My optimistic tendency is hopeful, but my best induction based on Abrams long history, current business situation, and stated plan for scheduling the writing strongly suggests expecting such a change is unrealistic.

It was a flawed film with some good moments sprinkled throughout.

To you at least (your Mona Lisa analogy and all,) but they are going to look and see that what they did worked for most everyone else who don't share that opinion.

Sadly true.

 

[Kirk1980]

Yeah, it's amazing how people who don't like the film but don't suggest people who do are idiots get shouted down, too.

Personally, I'm a fan of 'the majority loved it, therefore you are a moron' argument. I thought one of the guiding principles of Trek was that the underdog's opinion is every bit as right as the majority's and sometimes..more so?

Withers, from what I've seen it looks like you're taking a bad burn in the Classic forum and getting (likely justifiably) a bit defensive of your views.

People who went to see the Trek 09 film hoping for the best and expecting the worst are not any less a fan than you claim to be. I hoped for a good movie but based on Abrams' background and Orci/Kurtzman's I had little reason to expect it to be so based on my own personal tastes.

 

[RookieBatman]

It was a flawed film with some good moments sprinkled throughout. I'm hopeful that Abrams and Company see this film as a learning experience and come back in 2012 with a great sequel.

I don't know if they'll change anything, necessarily, but I'm hoping that by 2012, I'll be used to the nuTrek versions of the characters enough that I'll be able to enjoy the next movie like I would an average superhero or sci-fi film, and just enjoy the spectacle. I'm sorry, but I don't think I'll ever be able to think of it as Star Trek, but there's still a good action movie in there if I can make the proper emotional detachment.

 

[startrekrcks]

The cast and crew did a fine job rebirthing the franchise and I'm looking forward to future installments.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

If the folks who made this film simply follow their own judgment and do next time pretty much what they did this time, then the next movie will probably be both good entertainment and commercially successful.

Since oldTrek could not manage either of those things dependably, this is a big win for Paramount, Abrams and Star Trek.