ST09 critics, why don't you like it?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Very zen-like. The only option you're really giving is don't bother to critique it 'cause you'll be hitting the Submit Reply button without hesitation?

If one is inclined to embrace and forgive error or inconsistency it can be done; if one is determined to attack the narrative no defense is sufficient.

The only option I'm giving is don't bother with nitpicky critiques unless one enjoys wasting time posting nonsense.

Zen is good, BTW - makes a great deal more sense than fannish nitpicking, and will last a lot longer than Star Trek.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Jimmy Doohan did some weird, unidentifiable accent. Was it Scottish? Not really, but would Scottish sound like Scottish in 2/300 years?

Interesting analytic approach there, positing that what doesn't work can be excused by making assumptions about the far future - maybe if we assume that mediocre acting will be considered award calibre in 2/300 years then we can credibly argue that the original supporting cast is better than the Abrams cast.

Why are you talking to me, man?

Craig Ferguson said, as a kid growing up in Scotland, he thought Scotty was a Pakistani.

 

[blssdwlf]

Sorry, your opinion also carries no weight at all with respect to "the canon world."

Which is why I didn't substitute my opinion for canon onscreen events.

You did.

P-L-E-A-S-E. We're two sides of the same coin.

You substituted your opinion on canon onscreen events and came up with your whole opinion about the Federation can do everything they want to do in time-travel when they haven't.

In the Trek canon, none of what you are suggesting happened either. That is, if you understand what the word "canon" means in this context.

I have suggested nothing seriously that was not onscreen, because I understand what the word "canon" means.

You don't.

Suggested, eh? Slipping up - expected better of you.

How many ways do you want to have your cake?

If you want to substitute your opinion for canonical reference, I'll do the same: Spock didn't try to go back to save Kirk from Soran...

I never said that he did. I simply pointed out the nonsensical implications of your logic with regard to the movie.

There, your problem is solved using your own "logic."

I have no problem with either TOS or Abrams's Star Trek movie.

You do.

Just with Spock and how he was written. WHoop-dee-doo. It's got you mighty hot and bothered by it.

Now, don't try that again unless you're ready to up your game quite a bit, 'mkay?

Just look in the mirror and you'll have your answer, 'mkay?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Interesting analytic approach there, positing that what doesn't work can be excused by making assumptions about the far future - maybe if we assume that mediocre acting will be considered award calibre in 2/300 years then we can credibly argue that the original supporting cast is better than the Abrams cast.

Why are you talking to me, man?

In a thus-far unsuccessful attempt to obtain a rationally defensible response.

 

[shadowedgalaxy]

This thread.
It is delicious.

 

[blssdwlf]

The only option I'm giving is don't bother with nitpicky critiques unless one enjoys wasting time posting nonsense.

We both clearly are enjoying our time then.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

This thread.
It is delicious.

It has a certain demented charm about it.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

It is very entertaining especially with these armchair scriptwriters, directors, actors, key grips, caterers, production assistants, make up artists, sound mixers, and assistant directors who can write a better Star Trek story with one nut tied to their left leg hair and a pair of pliers tickling their butthole.

It is very entertaining to hear someone say they can make a better movie but they can't because of some dumb reason thats only logical to them. It is very entertaining to listen to someone explain an inconsistency in a 50 year old show, but if the modern equivalent shows any type of mistake its because the writers are no smarter than three year olds and are complete horseshit.

 

[Jeyl]

It is very entertaining to listen to someone explain an inconsistency in a 50 year old show, but if the modern equivalent shows any type of mistake its because the writers are no smarter than three year olds and are complete horseshit.

Believe me, inconsistency between this movie and the 50 years of Star Trek is hardly why I hate this movie.

 

[Jeyl]

You people keep getting it wrong. STXI was not made specifically for YOU. It was made everybody

Made everybody?....alright.

If you mean made for everybody, well, wouldn't the same thing be said about every other Star Trek series? It's not like they made the original Star Trek with the hopes of getting only a small select audience. Anyone and everyone can watch/read any form of Star Trek that's out there whether it be the series, movies, books, comics, games. Whatever. Just because it doesn't 'appeal' doesn't mean it failed. Hurt Locker was a really good movie, but it wasn't a box office smash. I thought the Young Victoria was one of the most delightful films I've seen all year, but hardly anyone talked about that movie and it didn't win big at the box office either.

You see, it's not that Star Trek isn't being made for us that bothers me. It's that it's being made for people who don't care anything about Star Trek and will continue to not care about anything related to Star Trek after this. What most people will like in this movie is not in any previous depiction of Star Trek.

 

[Warped9]

My problems with Trek 09 can be encapsulated in three words: Lowest Common Denominator.

The content of trekkie criticism of Trek 09 can be encapsulated in one word: trivial.

Ah, same as some poster's posturing remarks.

This thread was supposedly about why dissenters didn't like the film. And it was supposed to be reasonably free of those trying to stir an argument. But apparently some can't let that go and feel the need to impose their self-inflated "all knowing" insight.

Odd that the thread devoted to supporters of the film isn't experiencing this problem. Seems the dissenters are perfectly fine to let those posters have their say without feeling any impulse to get in there and stir up any discord.

Note: this thread appears to be more popular than the one designated for those who like the film. Hmmm...

Because people who like the film are posting here, but those who dislike it aren't posting in the like thread.

Yeah, it's called respecting the thread's intent, something the supporters don't seem to understand in this thread. They feel compelled to attack and shout down any opposing viewpoint because they know in their heart that many of the criticisms have weight.

It's almost akin to opposing universal health care.

I'd have more respect for them if they'd just say,"It was a shitty film, but I liked it anyway as a guilty pleasure." Actually I've come across a few posts that have said essentially that and I haven't seen any of those posters coming in here to stir up trouble.

But it's the more pretentious windbags that really annoy me.

 

[Devon]

If you mean made for everybody, well, wouldn't the same thing be said about every other Star Trek series?

No.

It's not like they made the original Star Trek with the hopes of getting only a small select audience.

What they wanted and what they did are two separate things.

Anyone and everyone can watch/read any form of Star Trek that's out there whether it be the series, movies, books, comics, games.

Not necessarily considering several installments actually tie in to past Trek or require previous knowledge (which is why arcs are never a good starting place for new fans.) Ironically two of those successful films threw back and acted as a sequel to two episodes, but still requires going back and seeing those episodes to get the full merit of their meaning.

Hurt Locker was a really good movie, but it wasn't a
box office smash.

That may have to do with its limited release. But then it, for the most part, appealed to whomever could see it.

It's that it's being made for people who don't care anything about Star Trek and will continue to not care about anything related to Star Trek after this

Preaching to a shrinking choir isn't going to save the franchise.

What most people will like in this movie is not in any previous depiction of Star Trek.

According to you anyone should be able to "pick up a book or a movie" and enjoy it all the same.

 

[Jeyl]

According to you anyone should be able to "pick up a book or a movie" and enjoy it all the same.

Well, if that were true, there wouldn't have been a need change anything in Trek.

Not necessarily considering several installments actually tie in to past Trek or require previous knowledge

You're right, but who is to say that starting somewhere that's 'not' the beginning isn't a good starting place? It's like the Star Wars movies. I always prefer starting with the original trilogy rather than the prequel trilogy, because a lot of great stories always start in the middle. If what you watch interests you, you can go back and see where and how it all began (Well, more so with Trek than Wars). You really think that franchises depend solely on everyone watching the series from the beginning in order to be successful or draw in new viewers? I didn't catch Farscape until Season 3 and I was hooked even though I had no idea what came before it. You can draw people into a franchise at any point without previous knowledge of what came before it.

Like you said about the two most successful Trek films. Trek II was a great follow up to Space Seed, but didn't require you to have seen Space Seed. And what about Star Trek IV? That was the last part in a trilogy (previous knowledge) that started out with stories stemming from the original series (more previous knowledge), but that didn't stop it from being appealing.

So basically, you don't have to start from a beginning to hook new viewers.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

Note: this thread appears to be more popular than the one designated for those who like the film. Hmmm...

Because people who like the film are posting here, but those who dislike it aren't posting in the like thread.

That's right. Because we have enough respect for your opinions to leave you alone and not mess up your thread. Why don't you and others like you show the same type of respect to us?

 

[Warped9]

To be fair not all ST09 supporters are trying to derail the thread. Only a handful.

It's an interesting comparison between the disagreement you encounter here online and that I've seen in the real world. Online people will fire off with everything they've got to make a point. I'd say most people I've encountered in the real world aren't like that. We each see we don't agree about the film and then kind of shrug and let it go. Having little to no common ground I suppose we don't see any point in dragging an argument out of it.

I suppose that's a good thing because I have to work with some of these people every day.

 

[Bill Morris]

I usually stay out of the Star Trek Movies XI+ forum. I haven't seen what you call ST09. The trailers made it a must-skip for me. But what I dislike about it most is that some Star Trek movie was going to get made, anyway, and maybe there were some things being pitched worthy of the Star Trek brand that still could have been profitable for the studio. And now that's on hold for the next few years, as well.

I am grateful to Paramount for the wealth of Trek they have given us in the past, and I understand that they need money. At least they were nice enough to put a warning label on it: This is not your father's Star Trek. I heard that! I'm an expendable fan. Okay, message received.

 

[Warped9]

I usually stay out of the Star Trek Movies XI+ forum. I haven't seen what you call ST09. The trailers made it a must-skip for me. But what I dislike about it most is that some Star Trek movie was going to get made, anyway, and maybe there were some things being pitched worthy of the Star Trek brand that still could have been profitable for the studio. And now that's on hold for the next few years, as well.

I am grateful to Paramount for the wealth of Trek they have given us in the past, and I understand that they need money. At least they were nice enough to put a warning label on it: This is not your father's Star Trek. I heard that! I'm an expendable fan. Okay, message received.

I felt very much like you have. But in the end I felt I had to see it in order to fairly comment on it. Mind you I didn't see in theatre--no way was I going to pay full up for it. I first saw it on a borrowed download (spare me the accusations--I live in Canada) and then later I borrowed someone's dvd copy.

 

[john titor]

While I liked certain aspects of the film, for example getting away from the stuffiness that had mired the franchise in the boredom domain, which reached its pinnacle with the appearance of Janeway in Nemesis, the main problem with the film was that it didn't make any sense. The plot holes are emblemmatic of modern movies in general, they make no sense! I don't expect things to be hyper realistic or logical, all I want is a film that has some semblance of rationality. Star Trek was in banana land.

 

[Set Harth]

I haven't seen what you call ST09.

You should see it. It's "Star Trek meets Lord of the Rings".

 

[stonester1]

The critics can think what they want. But when they claim they know what the fanbase REALLY thinks of Abrams' film, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, they are officially leaving the reservation at that point. They aren't landing on the same crazy planet the hard core Battlestar Galactica TOSsers live on, but they certainly are plotting an orbit at that point.

As I said, I love the film and I am inclined to let you all have your thread. But saying things like most "real fans" rejected this film is not a statement that can remain unchallenged.

I'm every bit the "real fan" anyone here is. I love the big shared universe that is Star Trek dearly since I first saw "Where No Man Has Gone Before" in the early 70s (still my fav TOS ep). But I love Abrams' Trek, too. Not perfect, but definitely a worthy addition to the Trekverse.