ST09 critics, why don't you like it?

[stonester1]

Even if someone likes this travesty of a film (for some reason), they still need to be able to be intellegent enough to admit when the movie screwed up, instead of trying to defend it as "perfect," as if it's the "Citizen Kane" of Star Trek films (which it is NOT, neither was it meant to be).

Of course it isn't perfect (but then, neither was Citizen Kane). Anyone who says it's perfect is not a credible critic.

Yet the 3D level of nitpickery is just as laughable, too. I find his "reviews" a combination of the kind of anal retentiveness that could get diamonds from coal, combined with the hurt voice of a jilted lover.

And the claims to "science" to support his views just completes the picture of a nutter.

 

[Warped9]

Wait...back up. Do you believe I haven't seen the new Trek? I have. Several times in theater, bought the pimped out Blu Ray set wit the Ent-mini. Just waiting to get the actual player.



In case I haven't made myself clear, I LOVED the new movie.

I've stated several times where I thought the film went right, and places I thought it went wrong. But for me, the right ovewhelmed the wrong rather handily.

Oops. I misunderstood. Sorry.

 

[3D Master]

Even if someone likes this travesty of a film (for some reason), they still need to be able to be intellegent enough to admit when the movie screwed up, instead of trying to defend it as "perfect," as if it's the "Citizen Kane" of Star Trek films (which it is NOT, neither was it meant to be).

Of course it isn't perfect (but then, neither was Citizen Kane). Anyone who says it's perfect is not a credible critic.

Yet the 3D level of nitpickery is just as laughable, too. I find his "reviews" a combination of the kind of anal retentiveness that could get diamonds from coal, combined with the hurt voice of a jilted lover.

That's interesting, seeing as I've only ever made one review.

More so, considering I'm usually actually pretty bad at finding nits. I also don't think I mentioned a single nit in the review; them being for example visual power lines, wrong editing, a few frames of clothes being reversed, and such.

 

[ST-One]

No, not really.
This takes... what?... a minute, two on screen?

Actually, from the time Spock entered the iBridge trubolift until Sulu and Kirk materialized on the transporter pad was almost five minutes. That's a long time. Especially when the turbolift is apparently fast enough to get Spock from the shuttlebay to the iBridge in less than 3 seconds on a supposedly 700+ meter ship.

You know, it's hard to argue with people who don't understand what editing is or how it works.
Next you are going to tell us that the Enterprise only needed a few minutes to get from Earth to Vulcan.

From a dramatic viewpoint this movie works on every level, plot-holes be damned.

 

[ST-One]

And this little thing took him more time than: 1. Kirk and Sulu starting to fall to their deaths, 2. the transporter operator not able to get them, 3. trying several times, 4. Chekov getting his idea, 5. Chekov running to the transporter room, 6. Chekov executing his idea and finally 7. Kirk and Sulu materializing.

If getting the belt took that much time, then the ship is horribly badly designed, because the equipment room has to be on the other side of the ship. That room should be close to, and ideally right next to or even in the transporter room; thus you not having to waste massive amounts of time getting some equipment to beam down when time is of the essence.

So no matter how you cut and past it, the problem still exists.

No, not really.
This takes... what?... a minute, two on screen?

Yes, that would be a VERY long time, considering he didn't even start putting it on until he got back. That means he ran, ran, ran, grabbed the belt, ran, ran, ran, and reached the transporter room and starting putting on the belt.

I, an overweight slow guy, as a 12-year-old, once managed a 400 meter lap in 2 minutes 26 seconds, and like I said, that was one of the slowest rounds of my age group. For a grown Vulcan used to higher gravity and much thinner air, in the 2-3 minutes he had, he could have ran all the way to the other side of the 700-meter super Enterprise, and back to the transporter room.

And that's assuming he ran the whole way instead of using the much faster turbolift. If that equipment room was right next to, or very close to the transporter room, as it would be in a properly designed ship; Spock would not have had to waste 10 seconds running into the equipment room, yanking a belt, and running back out.

And even if Spock arriving after Kirk and Sulu finally managed to get beamed back was not a problem, there's still the problem that Spock had to beam down to get the council and his parents to begin with. A government in exile/hiding must have communications ability at least to someone who uses logic. All Spock should have had to do was contact them and tell them they're ready to beam them out if they get themselves to some place the transporters can get them.

Yeah, but where would have been the drama in that?

Something that is utterly stupid, when noticed, destroys any drama you have attempted to put on screen. So if you can't do something without stupidity, it's best not to do it all. But if you're going with the stupidity, you better make sure it is the only, or one of a tiny few stupid things in your movie; especially before it comes up. That way, being still entirely immersed in the movie, they might miss it. And if they do notice it, they might be willing to forgive you for that one, although if they're honest, they'd still say it is stupid.

If however there's already been multiple stupid things before that to throw your viewers out of the movie, the chances they miss more stupidities are about the same chances a snowflake has in hell. And there are so many stupidities before this one, so many.

No.

 

[Nerys Myk]

No, not really.
This takes... what?... a minute, two on screen?

Actually, from the time Spock entered the iBridge trubolift until Sulu and Kirk materialized on the transporter pad was almost five minutes. That's a long time. Especially when the turbolift is apparently fast enough to get Spock from the shuttlebay to the iBridge in less than 3 seconds on a supposedly 700+ meter ship.

You know, it's hard to argue with people who don't understand what editing is or how it works.
Next you are going to tell us that the Enterprise only needed a few minutes to get from Earth to Vulcan.

From a dramatic viewpoint this movie works on every level, plot-holes be damned.

I shudder to think what a film put together by 3-D Master, BurntSynapse and Jekyl would look like.

 

[stonester1]

Well, the 3-D Master contribution would ensure the script would be drowning in boring-ass technobabble that would have you checking your chronometer and make you want to eat a disruptor barrel.

 

[ST-One]

But obviously, those "stupidities" didn't throw most viewers. I suspect you have to be a pretty anal killjoy determined to hate this movie for one to care, or even notice.

Or I just have a functioning brain that wasn't put in a trance by the loud noises and flashy sights.

BEST. RESPONSE. EVER.

Even if someone likes this travesty of a film (for some reason), they still need to be able to be intellegent enough to admit when the movie screwed up, instead of trying to defend it as "perfect," as if it's the "Citizen Kane" of Star Trek films (which it is NOT, neither was it meant to be).

Nice, the 'only-brainless-idiots' can enjoy this film kind of argumentation.

Since my taste in films and books is almost entirely 'mainstream', this 'travesty of a film' was made indeed for me.
And if you would now excuse me... I think I'm going to watch 'About Schmidt' or 'Who is afraid of Virginia Woolf' again.

 

[ST-One]

Actually, from the time Spock entered the iBridge trubolift until Sulu and Kirk materialized on the transporter pad was almost five minutes. That's a long time. Especially when the turbolift is apparently fast enough to get Spock from the shuttlebay to the iBridge in less than 3 seconds on a supposedly 700+ meter ship.

You know, it's hard to argue with people who don't understand what editing is or how it works.
Next you are going to tell us that the Enterprise only needed a few minutes to get from Earth to Vulcan.

From a dramatic viewpoint this movie works on every level, plot-holes be damned.

I shudder to think what a film put together by 3-D Master, BurntSynapse and Jekyl would look like.

Probably fan-wankery on the level of 'The good that men do'.
Or something that is a boring version of 2001 and Solaris ... combined.

 

[TOS Purist]

Especially when the turbolift is apparently fast enough to get Spock from the shuttlebay to the iBridge in less than 3 seconds on a supposedly 700+ meter ship.

You know, it's hard to argue with people who don't understand what editing is or how it works.

Yeah, except that in the case of the turbolift, there IS no editing in that scene. From the point that Spock gets into the turbolift and walks out onto the Bridge, you're watching a single, unbroken shot taking place in "real-time." It literally takes 3 seconds to get from the shuttlebay to the Bridge, which took me by surprise when I first saw it.

 

[Harvey]

Oh, Who is Afraid of Virginia Woolf. Such mainstream entertainment.

I'd like to see a list of all the plot holes in Star Trek. The claim that it has a vast number more than any previous film in the series strikes me as rather preposterous, but I'm ready to be told otherwise. It's certainly not short on plot holes, but has any film in the franchise ever been different?

 

[Warped9]

I'm not a moderator, and far be it from me to advise people in how to express themselves.

But, folks, can we try to watch the characterizations at least in this thread?

Blast the film if you want, and preferably with some clearly articulated reasons, but insulting someone because they like or don't like the film isn't going to get your opinion much respect or at least a fair hearing.

Take it from someone who has learned the hard way.

 

[stonester1]

I would agree, W9. And I would submit to you that I, you or any other intelligent moviegoer would be very insulted by anyone who would suggest that the only reason we deem a film "good" is because we were hypnotized by flashing lights and booming sound.

Fuck anyone who says that.

 

[ST-One]

Yeah, except that in the case of the turbolift, there IS no editing in that scene. From the point that Spock gets into the turbolift and walks out onto the Bridge, you're watching a single, unbroken shot taking place in "real-time." It literally takes 3 seconds to get from the shuttlebay to the Bridge, which took me by surprise when I first saw it.

Oh, that shot.
Nothing wrong with it actually.
Turbolifts always had the speed of plot (a bit like warp speed).

 

[TOS Purist]

Or something that is a boring version of 2001 and Solaris ... combined.

I don't think it's possible to make "2001" any MORE boring than it already is, considering that it's difficult to make it through that nonsensical film without falling asleep from the catatonic pacing.

 

[stonester1]

Personally, I love the movie. But you have to be in a certain mindset, or space, if you will, to watch it.

 

[ST-One]

Or something that is a boring version of 2001 and Solaris ... combined.

I don't think it's possible to make "2001" any MORE boring than it already is, considering that it's difficult to make it through that nonsensical film without falling asleep from the catatonic pacing.

Who would have thought this could be possible?
But that is exactly my opinion about 2001.

 

[Set Harth]

Heresy, I say! Heresy!!!

 

[ST-One]

Personally, I love the movie. But you have to be in a certain mindset, or space, if you will, to watch it.

So high that you can't see it anymore?

 

[stonester1]

Personally, I love the movie. But you have to be in a certain mindset, or space, if you will, to watch it.

So high that you can't see it anymore?

Actually, 2001, to me, as well as Solaris, Blade Runner and other films like it, are a philosophical, even meditative experience. Very spiritual. They touch on those higher truths of existence, in the unique way that well done science fiction and fantasy does. But those films don't do it as an element of the narrative. For those films, those ARE the narrative. That's why they aren't for just anyone. But for those who do "get" them, they are special films.