What Amazes Me

[Nerys Myk]

What are you talking about?

I'm not talking about continuity. I'm talking about things which were mistakes before. Why shouldn't people strive to have things be internally consistent?

For another thing, why do you think I give a damn about continuity?

I'm just tired of every time a criticism is made about this film, it's pointed out the old show did the same thing.

Yeah, so what? So they should just keep making the same mistakes? They should still have plot holes?

Are you serious? Do you have any clue how ridiculous that sounds?

"Well, TOS had stupid moments so therefore you can't complain about stupid moments in Trek 09."

God.

Read the post and the ones above it.

They will strive and they will fail on occasion.

If you are so up in arms about "mistakes" you must care about continuity.

TOS is the "Gold Standard, no?

Mistakes happen. As do plot holes. Are they desirable? No. Are then intentional? No.

About the same as as most arguments on both sides of the dicusion?

Well you can complain, but it seems silly to hold this film to a different standard than everything else.

Science!

 

[Kirk1980]

.....

Where do I hold ANYTHING to a different standard?

Have I said I approve of other screw-ups? If so, please point me to where.

I care about a film making sense in its own universe. This film does not and the ways in which does not are, in my opinion, very poorly done and not very entertaining.

ON IT'S OWN, there are parts of it which don't hold up.

 

[Nerys Myk]

.....

Where do I hold ANYTHING to a different standard?

Have I said I approve of other screw-ups? If so, please point me to where.

I care about a film making sense in its own universe. This film does not and the ways in which does not are, in my opinion, very poorly done and not very entertaining.

ON IT'S OWN, there are parts of it which don't hold up.

This film's "mistakes" seem to irritate you. I don't know if you are equally irritated by mistakes in other films or TV shows. You're kinda low on my radar.

Again I don't know one way or the other.

So you do care about continuity?

There are a few irritating spots. But on average its about the same as most films.

 

[BurntSynapse]

They will strive and they will fail on occasion.

In terms of writing, they failed almost constantly. Almost EVERY SINGLE line of dialog had some sort of problem. The last segment I checked (minute 87) starts with Kirk saying "You know, coming back in time, changing history, that's cheating." as if Spock was trying to murder his mother and destroy Vulcan. Spock's reply? "A trick..." Ridiculous! and the whole film is filled with essentially the same.

If you are so up in arms about "mistakes" you must care about continuity.

Factually inaccurate, plus a non-sequitur fallacy. IIRC his objection is that repeated appeals to past mistakes as justifying failures in any film is obviously invalid, and seeing this appeal to authority (TOS) fallacy over and over is irritating.

The fallacy is that it does not follow from "caring about mistakes generally" implies caring about the subset called "continuity errors".

Mistakes happen. As do plot holes. Are they desirable? No. Are then intentional? No.

Fine, but nowhere do you admit to any standard for minimum competence. In my view, you are making a form of appeal to human fallibility, without explaining why frequent and major violations of normal standards of writing and violations of film premises should be forgiven.

About the same as as most arguments on both sides of the dicusion?

Perhaps, but I think both sides are not doing well explaining the rules by which they judge, and what would change their mind, something several of the critics have done.

Claims of apathy (e.g.: "just a film" excuses) while simultaneously defending the film is self-contradictory. Also, there is a fair bit of characterizing criticism as subjective opinion by the critic, while providing support for the film as fact.

Well you can complain, but it seems silly to hold this film to a different standard than everything else.

I honestly don't think I've seen two hours of anything with more errors per minute, bigger plot holes, and less of a story - I mean, at least the propaganda for invading Iraq had a good story, and I was outraged over that and it's overwhelming popularity just makes it worse, same as AbramsTrek!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It more about the nature of the business and the creative process than being "dumb" or "stupid". None of the things Dennis listed are "stupid mistakes", but choices made to tell a story.

Well, mainly they're things that have been endemic to Star Trek since its beginning.

 

[Therin of Andor]

In terms of writing, they failed almost constantly. Almost EVERY SINGLE line of dialog had some sort of problem.

For you. I thought most of the dialogue did exactly what it was supposed to do and I'm sure that even if you replaced every line with a line more to your liking it won't "improve" the film to something that you'd like.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

For you. I thought most of the dialogue did exactly what it was supposed to do .

Absolutely Right(TM). The dialogue in this film was fine.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Fine, but nowhere do you admit to any standard for minimum competence. In my view, you are making a form of appeal to human fallibility, without explaining why frequent and major violations of normal standards of writing and violations of film premises should be forgiven.

My first standard is "Did I enjoy the movie?" If I didn't, then the writers are "incompetent". I dont know or care about BS like "violations of normal standards of writing and violations of film premises." I'm in the the theater to be entertained not to write a thesis. I want an entertaining, interesting and on occasion stimulating story, not a by the book film based on the rules,regulations and procedures some "academic" has decided comprises "good" film making or writing. If I have a good time, I can forgive any errors I or anyone else sees.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

I think it's going to be "The Wrath Of Fan."

True. It's been that for quite some time.

Yeah, but "fan" singular.

There are quite a few more than just "one" of us. Where have you been?

 

[Pauln6]

The dialogue wasn't a major problem. Missing dialogue that could have filled plot was a minor irritant at worst. The plot could have been less flabby and less contrived but again not a major problem. The scientific and Trek science contradcitions was a bit more irrritating but only to people who've been educated to understand and respect science or who actually care about Trek science. I suppose that the cummulative effect of so many minor irritations is that anybody that cares about all of them is going to wind up being a majorly irritated!

I just think it's a shame because an entertaining film could have been made even better with a few simple alterations. I seriously can't see non-fans complaining if they had followed mathmatically correct warp speeds or reigned in transporter ranges. They're just words on a page that only mean something to the nerds!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

There are quite a few more than just "one" of us.

Are you sure?

 

[Jeyl]

The dialogue wasn't a major problem.

I could have done with a lot less profanity.

 

[Jeyl]

There are quite a few more than just "one" of us.

Are you sure?

/raiseshand

 

[Devon]

In terms of writing, they failed almost constantly.

According to?

Almost EVERY SINGLE line of dialog had some sort of problem.

List all examples then.

The last segment I checked (minute 87) starts with Kirk saying "You know, coming back in time, changing history, that's cheating." as if Spock was trying to murder his mother and destroy Vulcan. Spock's reply? "A trick..." Ridiculous! and the whole film is filled with essentially the same.

By a show of replies, how many other members here thought Spock was implying he was killing his mother and destroyed Vulcan? (Before Burnt's implication.)

 

[Nerys Myk]

I thought line was refering to Spock trying to change the course of Kirk's history by helping him take command of the Enterprise. That was the plan they discussed previously.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

In terms of writing, they failed almost constantly.

According to?

Almost EVERY SINGLE line of dialog had some sort of problem.

List all examples then.

The last segment I checked (minute 87) starts with Kirk saying "You know, coming back in time, changing history, that's cheating." as if Spock was trying to murder his mother and destroy Vulcan. Spock's reply? "A trick..." Ridiculous! and the whole film is filled with essentially the same.

By a show of replies, how many other members here thought Spock was implying he was killing his mother and destroyed Vulcan? (Before Burnt's implication.)

That's a nonsense interpretation.

You know, people start topics here at the drop of a hat debating every little thing that we don't understand or that troubled us about the movie.

God knows how much discussion there's been about Spock's "Not this time."

There's never any topics or discussion of this kind of thing.

Why is that?

It's because such claims are ridiculous and would never occur to anyone who wasn't making the misinterpretation for the sake of contrariness.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

In terms of writing, they failed almost constantly. Almost EVERY SINGLE line of dialog had some sort of problem.

I probably will regret asking, but...

Post the script with your annotated comments explaining the problems with "almost every" line, on a line per line basis.

 

[Nerys Myk]

In terms of writing, they failed almost constantly. Almost EVERY SINGLE line of dialog had some sort of problem.

I probably will regret asking, but...

Post the script with your annotated comments explaining the problems with "almost every" line, on a line per line basis.

I'm sure it will be on his blog.

 

[seigezunt]

I know I will get a lot of heat for this but I would say Enterprise was a better show than Voyager.

Nope. I reach.

 

[Withers]

I honestly don't think I've seen two hours of anything with more errors per minute, bigger plot holes, and less of a story - I mean, at least the propaganda for invading Iraq had a good story, and I was outraged over that and it's overwhelming popularity just makes it worse, same as AbramsTrek!

Are you going to qualify that with something? If this is, literally, the worst two hours you have ever spent as a viewer I would posit that you're not really the effective critic your posts make you out to be on the grounds that your experience is extraordinarily limited. If you can't find anything worse than this you just aren't looking very hard.

I've accidentally seen worse movies than this.

-Withers-​