GIVE THAT MAN A CUPIE DOLL!!
ST09 critics, why don't you like it?
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
- Status
GIVE THAT MAN A CUPIE DOLL!!
^ Kewpie.
The only way to have maintained a closed thread on an open forum would have been to stick to the topic and not to acknowledge anyone not deemed an "authorized" critic; suffice it to say that this isn't what happened. Now, I can't be here every minute to control admission, but no one of the critics group was chairing the discussion, either (which would perhaps have been a better bet.)
means it's supposed to be read as a joke, but I don't particularly wish to see issues dragged in from threads in other forums. If there's anything you wish to say about that matter, then you should take it up with one of the moderators in that forum or with one of the admins, but it doesn't belong here.
Now... are we going to talk about the movie and what we didn't like about it, or are we finished here? I'm fine with it, either way.
This last is not what I had in mind when I said "As long as it stays civil", and I believe I've already addressed your concerns about what the thread title says; thank one of your co-critics for effectively canceling the critics-only aspect of the session by answering Dennis out of one side of his mouth while calling him a troll out of the other. (Jeyl, this is the part where you get to stand up and take a bow.)
The only way to have maintained a closed thread on an open forum would have been to stick to the topic and not to acknowledge anyone not deemed an "authorized" critic; suffice it to say that this isn't what happened. Now, I can't be here every minute to control admission, but no one of the critics group was chairing the discussion, either (which would perhaps have been a better bet.)
I know the^^ And people tell me to get over myself.
means it's supposed to be read as a joke, but I don't particularly wish to see issues dragged in from threads in other forums. If there's anything you wish to say about that matter, then you should take it up with one of the moderators in that forum or with one of the admins, but it doesn't belong here.Now... are we going to talk about the movie and what we didn't like about it, or are we finished here? I'm fine with it, either way.
Did he go back in time amd save Zarabeth from a cold and lonely death? How about poor I-Chaya? Of course Spock learned a hard lesson about mucking with the timeline in "Yesteryear".
Hell yeah!
Let's keep this thread on-track and slammin' away at ST09!! You know, I could have tolerated all the aspects of the stupid story, the inconsistencies in age (i.e., Chekov) and even the lens flares - if only it had looked like TOS, and was recognizable as TOS. As it was, the movie looked like something from way in TNG's future. The uniforms were good, but they should have used that same design aestetic (TOS, but "amped up" and detailed) for the rest of the film. But they didn't, and that's what disappointed me the most.
And Chris Pine. They could have TRIED to pick someone who had a passing resemblance to Shatner, considering they replicated Spock down to every last pore on his face...
Me, I don't give a damn if it's nothing like TOS.
My opinion remains that as a movie, it's still dumb, ridiculous, boring in its over the topness, insulting in its insipidity.
The only things which made me smile were things lifted directly out of the old show.
My opinion remains that as a movie, it's still dumb, ridiculous, boring in its over the topness, insulting in its insipidity.
The only things which made me smile were things lifted directly out of the old show.
This was brought to my attention and I think it's very on point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M67nnd8FjLk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M67nnd8FjLk
Nice.
There's a few more videos like that out there, too.
Also enjoy this review:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFyg3aH6LUw&feature=related
There's a few more videos like that out there, too.
Also enjoy this review:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFyg3aH6LUw&feature=related
Please feel free to share.
Give that man something less pathetic than a "Cupie doll."
Because he's right. Going by the storytelling standards established by TOS, there's nothing that can be objected to in terms of the plotting or characterizations in this movie. If anything, the pretty careful attention paid to TOS by the writers is a reminder of how silly, arbitrary and sometimes illogical Star Trek - like all popular fiction - sometimes was.
Maybe the truth of that chaps some folks - it certainly provides part of the explanation for the reality that most people who care about Star Trek and know it liked this movie well enough.
Every time I see a rant by someone that's predicated in any way on the premise that they know or understand more about Star Trek than those of us who enjoyed this movie I have to chuckle - because that's a lie and the evidence that it's untrue is all around, quite often in the very posts making that assertion.
I-Am-Zim
Captain
Hell yeah!
You know, I could have tolerated all the aspects of the stupid story, the inconsistencies in age (i.e., Chekov) and even the lens flares - if only it had looked like TOS, and was recognizable as TOS. As it was, the movie looked like something from way in TNG's future. The uniforms were good, but they should have used that same design aestetic (TOS, but "amped up" and detailed) for the rest of the film. But they didn't, and that's what disappointed me the most.
And Chris Pine. They could have TRIED to pick someone who had a passing resemblance to Shatner, considering they replicated Spock down to every last pore on his face...
I agree wholeheartedly!!! It would have been nice if the aesthetics in this travesty would have at least born a passing resemblance to TOS in some way other than the uniforms. I'm not going to go into how fugly the Abramsprise is or how silly the brewery looks or how horrible the iBridge and all its spotlights are. The look of this new universe is totally different from anything we've ever seen in the history of Star Trek. And it looks more futuristic than the 24th century of TNG and DS9. And they expect us to buy that one goofy looking Romulan going back in time caused all those radical changes??? Nope.
That was very interesting. I had noted several Star Wars references the very first time I watched the movie. But that first video pointed out several more that I hadn't considered. JJA must be a HUGE Star Wars fan. Some of the more blatant examples like the warp/hyperdrive, death star starbase, destruction of a planet (Vulcan/Alderaan), Delta Hoth, etc., were terribly obvious to anyone who even knows what Star Wars is. Personally, I don't want Star Wars in my Star Trek. It messes up the "flavor". The two are like oil and water, never meant to be mixed. But JJA mixed 'em, didn't he? And now we have to live with it.
Zarabeth was part of another planet's history that played out as it should. I don't recall I-Chaya, but if Spock knew how it was suppose to go and it was screwed up, he would've done something about it. If he was part of messing up the time, he'd go and fix it. If it meant the saving of a planet, he'd find a way. And come on, Spock's MOM!
If he learned a lesson from "Yesteryear" he clearly didn't apply it in "The Voyage Home" with the planet Earth.
Star Trek XI already has a compromised timeline and arguably one that is in an alternate universe. The only "logical" excuse that our Spock didn't do more is because "this reality is of no consequence because it isn't mine" - borrowed from SG1.
Part of the problem with Trek in regards to timelines and continuity is I think they could never really decide on what they were dealing with. You can either have one timeline where you can move back and forth in and have consequences. Or you can have multiple timelines where you never really change anything you're just switching tracks (so to speak) jumping from one timeline to another.
Nero wanted to save his planet and destroy Vulcan, but he doesn't accomplish any of those things in his own original timeline because he's jumped over to an alternate reality, a somewhat parallel timeline with a different continuity, one that was already divergent from his own before he arrives. So in effect Nero is just throwing a tantrum and wants to break something to vent his rage, but he never accomplishes a damned thing in his own original timeline...except that he disappears from it and that timeline is better off without him.
And so in the original timeline (one not necessarily the original TOS timeline) Vulcan continues to exist and Romulus remains no more.
Nero wanted to save his planet and destroy Vulcan, but he doesn't accomplish any of those things in his own original timeline because he's jumped over to an alternate reality, a somewhat parallel timeline with a different continuity, one that was already divergent from his own before he arrives. So in effect Nero is just throwing a tantrum and wants to break something to vent his rage, but he never accomplishes a damned thing in his own original timeline...except that he disappears from it and that timeline is better off without him.
And so in the original timeline (one not necessarily the original TOS timeline) Vulcan continues to exist and Romulus remains no more.
Give that man something less pathetic than a "Cupie doll."
Because he's right. Going by the storytelling standards established by TOS, there's nothing that can be objected to in terms of the plotting or characterizations in this movie. If anything, the pretty careful attention paid to TOS by the writers is a reminder of how silly, arbitrary and sometimes illogical Star Trek - like all popular fiction - sometimes was.
Maybe the truth of that chaps some folks - it certainly provides part of the explanation for the reality that most people who care about Star Trek and know it liked this movie well enough.
Every time I see a rant by someone that's predicated in any way on the premise that they know or understand more about Star Trek than those of us who enjoyed this movie I have to chuckle - because that's a lie and the evidence that it's untrue is all around, quite often in the very posts making that assertion.
The fun part of this discussion is seeing the funny viewpoints everyone has
I enjoyed the movie and treat it like watching a Superhero movie like Superman, Batman and Spiderman. We all know there isn't any consistency in their back stories (I'm assuming we all know
) but the main thing is they need to come "close enough" to what is expected. That bullet better bounce off of Superman. Batman better be able to kick Robin's ass. Spiderman should show off some wall-crawling action. Spock better be able to go back in time and save his own planet and mom and offer a bit of quirky logic. Kirk better be able to save the day, get the green girl and sleep tight on his good ship Enterprise. Everything else is fodder because it is fiction, but there should be something that comes close to being recognizable.Maybe the truth that chaps some folks who like the movie is that they know the movie is flawed and don't like it when it's pointed out to them, IMHO.
Spock sorta-Prime doesn't come to a passing resemblance and that's my opinion. They should've killed him at the end so he isn't some loose plot element waiting to go back and fix the past to save the future. Oh damn, I just threw out a cliche
I enjoyed the movie and treat it like watching a Superhero movie like Superman, Batman and Spiderman. We all know there isn't any consistency in their back stories (I'm assuming we all know
Exactly so. Star Trek works the same way as any other popular fiction.
I enjoyed the movie and treat it like watching a Superhero movie like Superman, Batman and Spiderman. We all know there isn't any consistency in their back stories (I'm assuming we all know
Exactly so. Star Trek works the same way as any other popular fiction.
For sorta-Prime Spock... Really? Who'd thunk?
But I guess you are right on this. If I had brought in an old character into a new series as a cameo I'd just have him say hi, say some sage advice, give away an awesome tactical knowledge and mourn for someone else's mother and planet (but care enough to pretend that it is his too, you know, to fit in and draw sympathy) and just disappear into the background like all good cameos go. The only difference is that I would've killed him off for better dramatic effect - really pass the torch on so to speak
But is it really burned?
It's an alternate universe now. Think Cross-overs. Like DC Comics and Marvel. Berman Trek and Abrams Trek. Antimatter universe, Evil Empire Universe cross-over. Gold!
And all they need to do to open the corridor between the universes is a Jeff Goldblum with his mac laptop uploading red matter into a wormhole.
Sorry, I couldn't help myself. Bad joke. But it would make money though
Hmm.. Is there a thread for folks who liked this movie but don't mind talking about the good and bad of it?
As far as this incarnation is concerned then, yes, they've burned the bridge behind them. They did so the instant they settled on an alternate continuity.
I will say one thing in the reboot approach's defense. If they had gone the route of trying to stay in TOS' continuity they likely would have faced a hailstorm of criticism if they got the slightest thing wrong. And then there is a matter of casting and character interpretation--no end of argument would have surfaced regarding the portrayal of the original characters. The "get out of jail" card of doing a reboot is that it allows you creative freedom to do something different and get away with it because you are not actually continuing what had been established before.
This is a fine line that I have to keep reminding myself. ST09 isn't TOS. These nu-characters are not the ones we're already familiar with. This isn't the same universe, the same timeline, the same continuity. It's not the same starship Enterprise.
Although I don't like how they've reinterpreted so many familiar aspects of Star Trek I could still have stomached much of it IF they had actually made a decent film with more credibility in worldbuilding and story elements. IF it had been more like Star Trek and less like Star Wars.
I will say one thing in the reboot approach's defense. If they had gone the route of trying to stay in TOS' continuity they likely would have faced a hailstorm of criticism if they got the slightest thing wrong. And then there is a matter of casting and character interpretation--no end of argument would have surfaced regarding the portrayal of the original characters. The "get out of jail" card of doing a reboot is that it allows you creative freedom to do something different and get away with it because you are not actually continuing what had been established before.
This is a fine line that I have to keep reminding myself. ST09 isn't TOS. These nu-characters are not the ones we're already familiar with. This isn't the same universe, the same timeline, the same continuity. It's not the same starship Enterprise.
Although I don't like how they've reinterpreted so many familiar aspects of Star Trek I could still have stomached much of it IF they had actually made a decent film with more credibility in worldbuilding and story elements. IF it had been more like Star Trek and less like Star Wars.
You people keep getting it wrong. STXI was not made specifically for YOU. It was made everybody, from the person who takes a fine tooth comb through every episode of Star Trek even after nearly 50 years later to the person who goes Spock Who? Why do you say? Because Paramount is the business to make money first, and then to entertain second. Its obvious to the Execs that the old way to make Trek shows and movies were not raking in the big bucks. So they went with a new premise. You should be happy that TPTB did not make a complete reboot and nothing was the same except for the title. Of course not, all you whiners want pick through every scene and say see this not what the original series would have done.
Yes, Star Trek is a little like Star Wars, because Star Wars works. Even when the Prequel whiners went to see multiple showings of Star Wars. They Prequel whiners also bought the expensive tech manuals, the card games, the tie-in novels, the video games, toys, and new spin off cartoons. If you are a successful business person, you look and emulate successful plans.
so here is the big question you TOS whiners, can you write and make a movie that would satisfy the old fans and bring in the new fans. When I say new fans, I am going for the Spock Who? You know the fan who needs every major character in the film to be introduced, which would include the technology that would go along with the major characters such as transporters, ships, and warp drive. Oh yes, assume that the new fan is dumb as a rock, do not assume they will understand technobabble or have Spock spell out what his plan is in near minute detail. I bet you couldn't because you are sitting and ranting about a film rather than putting together a proposal, script, working the film relationships. How do I know this because the majority of whiners are the ones who post a response to nearly every response in which they have previously posted. You know who you are.
So in conclusion, enjoy the damn movie. If you are looking for a period piece, watch and evaluate The Hurt Locker.
Yes, Star Trek is a little like Star Wars, because Star Wars works. Even when the Prequel whiners went to see multiple showings of Star Wars. They Prequel whiners also bought the expensive tech manuals, the card games, the tie-in novels, the video games, toys, and new spin off cartoons. If you are a successful business person, you look and emulate successful plans.
so here is the big question you TOS whiners, can you write and make a movie that would satisfy the old fans and bring in the new fans. When I say new fans, I am going for the Spock Who? You know the fan who needs every major character in the film to be introduced, which would include the technology that would go along with the major characters such as transporters, ships, and warp drive. Oh yes, assume that the new fan is dumb as a rock, do not assume they will understand technobabble or have Spock spell out what his plan is in near minute detail. I bet you couldn't because you are sitting and ranting about a film rather than putting together a proposal, script, working the film relationships. How do I know this because the majority of whiners are the ones who post a response to nearly every response in which they have previously posted. You know who you are.
So in conclusion, enjoy the damn movie. If you are looking for a period piece, watch and evaluate The Hurt Locker.
- Status
Similar threads
