ST09 critics, why don't you like it?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

"Posting meaningfully" does not mean posting in agreement.

Again, we don't get to create threads intended to discourage some posters from participating. Hell, if that ever happened the majority in any forum could log-roll any criticism off onto the second or third page of posts just by specifying some variation of "for people who like the movie/tv show/whathaveyou" on every topic they created.

Encouraging the participation of all posters always ultimately protects the minority - in this case, people who don't like Abrams's movie - rather than the majority. It simply doesn't protect you from reading opinions you don't like.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

"Posting meaningfully" does not mean posting in agreement.

Again, we don't get to create threads intended to discourage some posters from participating. Hell, if that ever happened the majority in any forum could log-roll any criticism off onto the second or third page of posts just by specifying some variation of "for people who like the movie/tv show/whathaveyou" on every topic they created.

Encouraging the participation of all posters always ultimately protects the minority - in this case, people who don't like Abrams's movie - rather than the majority. It simply doesn't protect you from reading opinions you don't like.

Again, you don't understand what I am saying. I am perfectly willing to read anyone's opinions. I am also perfectly willing to post on any thread that I feel I can contribute to. In a thread dedicated to fans of the new movie, I know that I could go there and post my opinion. But why should I? The thread isn't aimed at me as a critic of the new movie. I choose to stay away and let the NuTrek fans have at it. Unfortunately, the NuTrek fans can't stay away from this thread. On the other hand, in any other thread on this forum, I will happily post my opinion while cheerfully reading others' opinions and replying as needed. Even if those opinions don't agree with mine. And I will do all this without (intentionally) insulting or degrading anyone regardless of their feelings toward this new incarnation of Star Trek. Something that, unfortunately, can't be said of some fans of the movie.

 

[Kirk1980]

Wow, Dennis, those are pretty strong words against this movie I thought you liked.

But yes, I do agree that while 'fun', it had no substance. Insightful post!

 

[thumbtack]

Just to give a sense of perspective, here are Rotten Tomatoes' approval ratings for all eleven films:

ST 2009: 94%
FC: 92%
TWOK: 90%
TVH: 84%
TUC: 82%
TSFS: 76%
INS: 55%
TMP: 50%
GEN: 45%
NEM: 37%
TFF: 23%

Here are IMDb's ratings (on a scale of ten):

ST'09: 8.2
TWOK: 7.8
FC: 7.6
TVH: 7.3
TUC: 7.2
TSFS: 6.5
GEN: 6.5
INS: 6.4
NEM: 6.4
TMP: 6.2
TFF: 4.9

And Netflix (on a scale of five):

ST'09: 4.3
FC: 3.8
TWOK: 3.7
TVH: 3.7
TUC: 3.7
TSFS: 3.6
GEN: 3.6
INS: 3.6
TMP: 3.5
NEM: 3.5
TFF: 3.4

.

This proves nothing.



Oh, wait.

 

[TOS Purist]

Irrelevant.

 

[Withers]

Here's my thing with the majority vs. minority argument;

We all know people who have minority opinions on things. The people who enjoy microwaved coffee as opposed to fresh brewed, the ones who would rather take a bus than a cab when money isn't a factor, the ones who will take a cloudy overcast day as opposed to a sunny one etc. The people who have the aforementioned opinions (inclinations) typically don't accost those who have the majority opinion, knowing full well the position they hold is a rarer one.

Neither one is right but still... if you really think gridlock is more fun than an open freeway, you have to know how crazy that sounds to the rest of us who don't think that and such vocalizations should be made with that in mind. Majority opinion is kind of irrelevant... but if the point is to discuss and converse then the minority opinion can't come across like they're the sane ones and the rest of us are nuts (at best- at worst, stupid and incapable of grasping what makes something good, good.)

-Withers-​

 

[Set Harth]

About the only aspect of the film I really still have a major problem with is this one:

I intend to assist in the effort to reestablish communication with Starfleet.

...uh, what?

 

[3D Master]

Here's my thing with the majority vs. minority argument;

We all know people who have minority opinions on things. The people who enjoy microwaved coffee as opposed to fresh brewed, the ones who would rather take a bus than a cab when money isn't a factor, the ones who will take a cloudy overcast day as opposed to a sunny one etc. The people who have the aforementioned opinions (inclinations) typically don't accost those who have the majority opinion, knowing full well the position they hold is a rarer one.

Neither one is right but still... if you really think gridlock is more fun than an open freeway, you have to know how crazy that sounds to the rest of us who don't think that and such vocalizations should be made with that in mind. Majority opinion is kind of irrelevant... but if the point is to discuss and converse then the minority opinion can't come across like they're the sane ones and the rest of us are nuts (at best- at worst, stupid and incapable of grasping what makes something good, good.)

Yeah, back when humanity as a large majority still thought the planet was flat, that vast majority was still ignorant and incapable of grasping the observational truth that the Earth was round.

And guess what, the minority "opinion" that the Earth was round, were the smart folks who had it right.

Whether or not something is true, is completely regardless of how many have that opinion.

 

[Withers]

Whether or not something is true, is completely regardless of how many have that opinion.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, and once upon a time the majority of people in the United States thought slavery was alright too. I get it.

I didn't say that having the majority opinion made said opinion right. If I had I would take your position to have more merit than it does. We aren't dealing in terms of right or wrong, just in opinion, and when people with the minority opinion on a movie come at the majority in such a hostile fashion as is popular in this particular area of the forum, the conversation becomes increasingly difficult to have civilly.

-Withers-​

 

[lawman]

But I don't think your premise there really holds up. The critics of this film haven't, by and large, "come at the majority in... a hostile fashion."

Sure, there's been hostility toward the film — but that's not the same thing. And there's occasionally a bit of overwrought rhetoric... e.g., 3D Master's lengthy review boiled over at a couple of points (I thought the quip about shooting J.J. Abrams was out of line)... but his criticism of the film on its own terms was still intelligent, insightful, and mostly spot-on.

I understand how easy it is for fans to lapse into taking film criticism personally, but the critics can't help that. I can relate to some extent... it continues to bug me when apologists excuse the film's shortcomings by insisting that Trek was just never that good in the first place... but even then, what gets me is not so much a sense of personal insult as the confusion arising from thinking "if they think so little of Trek, why are they posting in a place like this anyway?"

Honestly, it seems to me that it's more often been the film's fans than its critics who've brought personal hostility into things. Certainly the attitude is often close to the surface —or out in the open — that since the film was a big success, those of us in the minority should just shut up and deal with it. (At the risk of comparing a trivial issue to an important one, in some ways it seems analogous to right-wingers who complain that they wouldn't mind gay people so much if they'd just stay in the closet and stop being so public about things.) There are lots of posts from the movie's defenders that seem designed to shut down discussion rather than engage in it, to dismiss criticisms rather than respond to them... which seems a bit odd for a discussion forum.

At any rate, the whole point of this thread was to be a place where the film's advocates needn't drop in and thus no hostility need arise on either side. If they choose to do so anyway, presumably they do so (or should) with a thick skin.

 

[Warped9]

The camps seem to basically be this:

The fans of the film see it as basically a fun movie that they believe captures the enthusiasm of TOS and they don't mind the flaws if they notice any. It's fun. They think it's no sillier than some of TOS' episodes and that's justification enough. Some of the fans also don't seem to think much of TOS anyway and seem to see it as mostly simple escapist entertainment without much depth.

The critics generally feel the film could have been so much more. They see something of value in TOS above run-of-the-mill sci-fi and they don't see that in ST09. They feel the film panders to overdone cliches and sacrifices coherent plot and story in favour of mostly hyperactive pacing and eye candy. Many of the critics think of TOS' best and better episodes and are disappointed (in varying degrees) that the film doesn't exhibit higher aspirations in like manner.

 

[Withers]

And then...

(And I honestly think this is a bigger camp than either of those), there's the blended group who think it was fun, weren't overwhelmingly perturbed by the flaws, have no general thoughts as to the quality or depth of TOS (as it has no more bearing on this film than the other series did) and think it could have been so much more at the same time.

I object to the notion that if you liked it you can't have any criticisms of it and if you hated it you can't find anything redeeming about it (though the later seems like a more justified statement in my opinion.)

-Withers-​

 

[number6]

It isn't that people who liked this film and forgive its flaws think that TOS wasn't good. Not at all. I think people who get angry about the perceived shortcoming of the film are only to ready to give TOS a pass for doing the same things this movie is being criticized more harshly for.
That's what seems kinda silly to me.

I am a lifelong TOS fan and I have enjoyed all the incarnations of Trek over the years and don't really see why there has to be so much animosity every time Trek has tried to break a few "rules."

Sure I would have loved to see the old 1701 and its interiors on the big screen, but does that have to be a dealbreaker with this film? Does it matter that the ship was built on Earth?? Do the shape of the nacelles really make you run screaming from the theatre??

I feel if such trivial things are so upsetting then why bother??

I hated B5 and the LiS remake and frankly I didn't think much of Batman Begins, but I'm not popping into fan sites bitching out those who like that stuff.

Getting so worked up about hating something to the point of writing novel length blogs about it seems a bit of a waste of energy.

YMMV, of course.

 

[Warped9]

And then...

(And I honestly think this is a bigger camp than either of those), there's the blended group who think it was fun, weren't overwhelmingly perturbed by the flaws, have no general thoughts as to the quality or depth of TOS (as it has no more bearing on this film than the other series did) and think it could have been so much more at the same time.

I object to the notion that if you liked it you can't have any criticisms of it and if you hated it you can't find anything redeeming about it (though the later seems like a more justified statement in my opinion.)
-Withers-

You're saying essentially the same thing I said. I didn't say fans couldn't have criticisms of it. I said fans aren't bother by flaws if they notice them.

 

[Withers]

But I am bothered... just not to the point I can't be considered a fan anymore. I was bothered by them but not so significantly I couldn't enjoy it. It's the actual middle ground fences ridding folk like myself enjoy for the sake of the fact it lets us trash things we actually like. The very same logic applies to Star Trek Voyager. I am very bothered by a lot of things in that show but I still enjoy it. It affords me the luxury of being able to watch it and still complain about it ten years after the fact.

Best of Both Worlds.

-Withers-​

 

[I-Am-Zim]

But I don't think your premise there really holds up. The critics of this film haven't, by and large, "come at the majority in... a hostile fashion."

Sure, there's been hostility toward the film — but that's not the same thing. And there's occasionally a bit of overwrought rhetoric... e.g., 3D Master's lengthy review boiled over at a couple of points (I thought the quip about shooting J.J. Abrams was out of line)... but his criticism of the film on its own terms was still intelligent, insightful, and mostly spot-on.

I understand how easy it is for fans to lapse into taking film criticism personally, but the critics can't help that. I can relate to some extent... it continues to bug me when apologists excuse the film's shortcomings by insisting that Trek was just never that good in the first place... but even then, what gets me is not so much a sense of personal insult as the confusion arising from thinking "if they think so little of Trek, why are they posting in a place like this anyway?"

Honestly, it seems to me that it's more often been the film's fans than its critics who've brought personal hostility into things. Certainly the attitude is often close to the surface —or out in the open — that since the film was a big success, those of us in the minority should just shut up and deal with it. (At the risk of comparing a trivial issue to an important one, in some ways it seems analogous to right-wingers who complain that they wouldn't mind gay people so much if they'd just stay in the closet and stop being so public about things.) There are lots of posts from the movie's defenders that seem designed to shut down discussion rather than engage in it, to dismiss criticisms rather than respond to them... which seems a bit odd for a discussion forum.

At any rate, the whole point of this thread was to be a place where the film's advocates needn't drop in and thus no hostility need arise on either side. If they choose to do so anyway, presumably they do so (or should) with a thick skin.

The nail was hit squarely upon it's head.

 

[lawman]

The camps seem to basically be this:

The fans of the film see it as basically a fun movie that they believe captures the enthusiasm of TOS and they don't mind the flaws if they notice any. It's fun. They think it's no sillier than some of TOS' episodes and that's justification enough. Some of the fans also don't seem to think much of TOS anyway and seem to see it as mostly simple escapist entertainment without much depth.

The critics generally feel the film could have been so much more. They see something of value in TOS above run-of-the-mill sci-fi and they don't see that in ST09. They feel the film panders to overdone cliches and sacrifices coherent plot and story in favour of mostly hyperactive pacing and eye candy. Many of the critics think of TOS' best and better episodes and are disappointed (in varying degrees) that the film doesn't exhibit higher aspirations in like manner.

Warped, I think you sum up both sides with both accuracy and admirable diplomacy here.

Still, as I recently alluded in the post Zim quotes... I confess it puzzles me why anyone who sees Trek as mere "simple escapist entertainment" — or who's content to enjoy it in that mode even while seeing where it falls short, like Withers — would ever care enough to be posting on a fan site like this in the first place. If that's all it is to you, what's the point?

(Maybe it's the old "FIAWOL" vs "FIJAGDH" dichotomy at work again. Funny thing is, I always considered myself to be in the latter camp of that debate... it's just that I take my hobbies fairly seriously.)

Sure I would have loved to see the old 1701 and its interiors on the big screen, but does that have to be a dealbreaker with this film? Does it matter that the ship was built on Earth?? Do the shape of the nacelles really make you run screaming from the theatre??

I feel if such trivial things are so upsetting then why bother??

By themselves, they're not "so upsetting." But in combination with everything else that's wrong with the movie... as Trek, as a film in its own right, and quite simply as a story... cumulatively, they push my experience of watching the film well past the point of diminishing returns.

I hated B5 and the LiS remake and frankly I didn't think much of Batman Begins, but I'm not popping into fan sites bitching out those who like that stuff.

Disliked both Babylon 5 and Batman Begins? Okay, now I'm really skeptical about your taste. (And, sorry — what's LiS?)

Getting so worked up about hating something to the point of writing novel length blogs about it seems a bit of a waste of energy.

Dude... it's fandom. I think it's safe to say that most moviegoers would think getting so worked up about something (pro or con) as to write about it message boards at all is a waste of energy. Fans are a different breed.

 

[number6]

LiS=Lost in Space.

 

[ST-One]

It isn't that people who liked this film and forgive its flaws think that TOS wasn't good. Not at all. I think people who get angry about the perceived shortcoming of the film are only to ready to give TOS a pass for doing the same things this movie is being criticized more harshly for.
That's what seems kinda silly to me.

I am a lifelong TOS fan and I have enjoyed all the incarnations of Trek over the years and don't really see why there has to be so much animosity every time Trek has tried to break a few "rules."

Sure I would have loved to see the old 1701 and its interiors on the big screen, but does that have to be a dealbreaker with this film? Does it matter that the ship was built on Earth?? Do the shape of the nacelles really make you run screaming from the theatre??

I feel if such trivial things are so upsetting then why bother??

I hated B5 and the LiS remake and frankly I didn't think much of Batman Begins, but I'm not popping into fan sites bitching out those who like that stuff.

Getting so worked up about hating something to the point of writing novel length blogs about it seems a bit of a waste of energy.

YMMV, of course.

I agree with this.
Well... minus the B5 and LiS remake thing

 

[Warped9]

In fairness when some invoke the accusation, "You're not a fan or a real fan if you like or don't like________" (fill in the blank) then it smells of a last ditch attempt to silence whoever they're debating/arguing with.

I think a lot of the posters around here are very intelligent--hell it's one of the reasons I hang around, hoping some of it will rub off on me. But I also think some of us might not give others credit for their perceptiveness and observational skills. Essentially it sometimes seems like we hammer the same thing at each other over and over thinking that eventually it will sink into the other person's brain and they'll finally "get it" as in seeing your side off the argument.

I think of mysrlf as reasnably perceptive. And if I say I don't see something in a film or television show and someone else keeps arguing, "Yes, it's there. What's wrong with you?" that isn't likely to be persuasive with me. Just insisting on something isn't a convincing argument. Often enough it's when someone just says, "I disagree because of this, this and this..." then I'm more likely to think about it and consider whether I should take another look. In the end I may change my mind or I may still not agree, but at least I won't feel like I was browbeaten about it.