ST09 critics, why don't you like it?

[ST-One]

The new characters are either one or the other.

Untrue.

 

[TOS Purist]

Untrue.

I'd ask "how so?", but this isn't meant to be a debate thread. It's only meant for slamming the movie and providing a safe haven for people to do so.

 

[Warped9]

^^ To be fair it isn't supposed to be just about slamming the film, but why it doesn't work for you. Just saying something sucks doesn't say much.

Even so just saying "untrue" isn't much of a rebuttal.

 

[ST-One]

^^ To be fair it isn't supposed to be just about slamming the film, but why it doesn't work for you. Just saying something sucks doesn't say much.

Even so just saying "untrue" isn't much of a rebuttal.

No, I guess it's not.
It's stating the bloody obvious.

 

[Shazam!]

It was entirely possible, and simple, for you to check whether it was open or not without actually posting - clearly you understand exactly how the board works. So you posted there for another reason.

Yeah, you're totally above posting subversively.

No, wait..

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=116952

 

[I-Am-Zim]

No, I guess it's not.
It's stating the bloody obvious.

Not necessarily. It's stating what you think is obvious in your opinion. Personally, I could have done without the little green alien sidekick. Scotty didn't need a sidekick in TOS, why should he need one now? He wasn't the comic relief in TOS, why should he be now? Scotty had his comedic moments, as did all the TOS characters at one point or another. But none could have been considered the "comic relief". Unfortunately, NuScotty seems to have been assigned that label. And that's a shame. Montgomery Scott is a "miracle worker", not a comedian that happens to know a little bit about starships.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

Just for the record, that thread wasn't shut down. It's still alive and kicking. I just posted a short line there just to make sure. clicky

It was entirely possible, and simple, for you to check whether it was open or not without actually posting - clearly you understand exactly how the board works. So you posted there for another reason.

Actually, no I didn't.

 

[ST-One]

No, I guess it's not.
It's stating the bloody obvious.

Not necessarily. It's stating what you think is obvious in your opinion. Personally, I could have done without the little green alien sidekick. Scotty didn't need a sidekick in TOS, why should he need one now? He wasn't the comic relief in TOS, why should he be now? Scotty had his comedic moments, as did all the TOS characters at one point or another. But none could have been considered the "comic relief". Unfortunately, NuScotty seems to have been assigned that label. And that's a shame. Montgomery Scott is a "miracle worker", not a comedian that happens to know a little bit about starships.

And where exactly would be the problem about Scotty being the comic relief in this movie?

 

[lawman]

(BTW, PA, why on earth should any of us care how "profitable" Star Trek is? We're fans, not Paramount executives. I'm aware that it's the property of a corporation that will do what they like with it, but that's hardly something to celebrate... much less a defense of the artistic merits of the product.)

Because you have a lot of people on this board whose only concern is to be associated with something popular. I think alot of them were picked last for Dodgeball when they were kids.

Smileys aside, I think you're making a valid point here. Otherwise, why would so many people keep pointing to polls and box-office returns, as if they proved anything about the film's merits, versus just its popularity? It's as if they're all stalled at Kohlberg's third stage of development.

Funny thing is, I was one of those kids who was routinely picked last for Dodgeball (and whatever other game you care to name). In the fullness of time, the lesson I took away from that was that being popular (and going along with what's necessary to be so) is less important than being true to one's own standards. It's hardly an obscure lesson; in fact, it's the theme of about a million other movies, books, and TV shows. Perhaps the folks we're talking about just never saw any of those?

...I will not nitpick this film in every minute detail to prove I have really do not have no point and press my opinions as facts. Especially, when the majority of Trek fans who went to the film, enjoyed as shown by percentage who voted in this forum and reviews sites.

Spot-on example of what BillJ and I were just discussing. What does it matter how many viewers say they enjoyed the film? What does it prove? I mean that as a serious question. Think about it. I'm genuinely curious about your answer.

I just wish that us "ST09 dislikers" could have been left alone, entitled to our opinion, and allowed to express it amongst ourselves as a refuge, a "support group" for each other, to deal with the fact that we will not get "real" Star Trek for a very, very long time since this movie came out....

Yeah. Me too. That's why the "critic's" thread is sooooo much higher on the board than the "fan's". Because the proponents of NuTrek simply can't stay away. They can't resist the urge to ridicule, insult, and degrade those of us who don't share their opinion...

Let me just weigh in to endorse the both of you here!...

If you are going to be a dick, be honest about it.

So I take it that diplomacy is not your chosen profession?

Yeah, you see, I've always said, I much rather see Trek (or any other franchise) END, than to see it continued with utter shit, and that shit being dumped all over the good stuff that came before.

Indeed. And this is a perfect example of what I meant about being true to one's own standards.

Honestly, I've never understood why someone would want "more" of something when they're not actually getting what made the thing worthwhile it in the first place. Yet people still (for example) mourn the cancellation of their favorite TV shows long after those shows have jumped the shark. It's like continuing to patronize your local pub even thought they've started watering the drinks.

The world is full of creative ideas. If we let a few of the corporate "franchises" fall by the wayside once they've been milked dry, perhaps there'll be more room for good new stuff.

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?

So, if I don't see Trek as some sort of sacrosanct set of principles that must never be violated by attempts to add to it as a whole contrary to what I personally want, I must not care about it enough to warrant posting on a forum about it? Essentially, if I don't go off the deep end in one way or another, either gushing love for it or spewing bile at it, I don't belong?

It sure would make your job easier if that were true, wouldn't it? Unfortunately some of us actually are reasonable, measured people, who just want to talk about it- not hold a daily meeting of the pretentious tight-ass club over it or nail anybody to the cross for their feelings on it one way or the other.

No, that's not remotely what I wrote. Are you serious? I posted a sincere and genuine point of curiosity, taking care to phrase it as diplomatically and inoffensively as I could... and in response you paraphrase (actually, caricature) my remarks in the most extreme and caustic manner possible, in the process labelling me (and implicitly other fans) as "unreasonable," as "pretentious tight-asses" who are "off the deep end" and want to "nail people to the cross"?

And then in your very next post you accuse other people of being "hellbent on getting an argument started"?

An aphorism about glass houses springs to mind. And one about pots and kettles. Both are appropriate.

My actual question, not that you seem to give a damn, had to do with how people understand the concept of fandom. Fandom, historically (and I suspect in most of our personal experience), denotes a passionate attachment and dedication to something. This site was created and populated by people who are fans of Star Trek, because, c'mon, who else would take the time unless they were being paid for it?

Something one views as casual escapist entertainment, on the other hand, does not usually inspire that degree of avid enthusiasm and engagement.

I enjoy the new TV show Human Target as an escapist action-adventure show, well-made within the constraints of its genre. But that's all it is to me, so I wouldn't dream of spending time debating about it online. I enjoy the occasional baseball or basketball game, but I would never dream of listening to sports talk radio programs, much less calling in.

See the distinction I'm getting at? That's what I'm curious about, and I think it's a legitimate thing to ask, not an implicit insult to anybody. It's hardly a character flaw not to care that deeply about Star Trek. It's just that, if one doesn't, why is one here?

 

[Warped9]

^^ Well said.

 

[stonester1]

Not really. He implied that all fans that enjoyed the film (most of them) aren't "passionate" about Trek, (not real fans, by implication). When many of us have made it clear that we certainly ARE.

There's a difference between being passionate, and being anal, off balance, or just plain nuts.

There's a reason Shatner's "Get a life!" joke was funny, even to fans.

 

[muzzleflash]

Hoenstly, I've never understood why someone would want "more" of something when they're not actually getting what made the thing worthwhile it in the first place. Yet people still (for example) mourn the cancellation of their favorite TV shows long after those shows have jumped the shark. It's like continuitng to partronize your local pub even thought they've started watering the drinks.

Depends on what you consider worthwhile. You would go to that pub if there was nothing else to drink.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Not really. He implied that all fans that enjoyed the film (most of them) aren't "passionate" about Trek, (not real fans, by implication).

That would be like someone saying that I have green hair - ie, rather than take offense I could only shake my head in pity at their peculiar confusion, because my hair isn't green.

 

[TOS Purist]

Wow, Lawman makes a great, intellegent, and in-depth post making a lot of good points, and people have already started shooting at it without making a proper, sensical counter-argument.

 

[ST-One]

Wow, Lawman makes a great, intellegent, and in-depth post making a lot of good points,

Actually no, he doesn't.

He just goes on and on lecturing us about what a fan supposed to think.

 

[lawman]

Not really. He implied that all fans that enjoyed the film (most of them) aren't "passionate" about Trek, (not real fans, by implication). When many of us have made it clear that we certainly ARE.

There's a difference between being passionate, and being anal, off balance, or just plain nuts.

No, I implied no such thing. I'm sure there are passionate Trek fans who genuinely loved this movie, for reasons of their own. I've read reviews and posts from a few, and I take no issue with them... especially as they're not usually the types who go out of their way to demean those who disagree, because they and the critics at least share a genuine underlying love of Star Trek.

What I was asking about are the posters who opine that (essentially) it's no big deal if it was shallow and full of plot holes, because hey, Trek was never all that good in the first place; it's just a fun way to kill a couple of hours, and it's silly for anyone to expect more. That's the kind of attitude which I think calls into question why and how the speaker could possibly consider himself a fan.

But if such a poster really does consider himself a fan... well, as I said, I was offering a sincere question, not a veiled insult (much less an unveiled one, like your post I just quoted). This forum is a perfectly good place to explain what you think I'm misinterpreting, rather than just taking potshots.

Wow, Lawman makes a great, intellegent, and in-depth post making a lot of good points,

Actually no, he doesn't.

He just goes on and on lecturing us about what a fan supposed to think.

I notice you snipped the part of TOS Purist's post about offering a sensible counter-argument... presumably because you weren't going to bother to do so.

If you really think I was just lecturing and posturing, then for heaven's sake, spend some time explaining how and why you think I'm wrong. If you can't do that, though, what's the point of just "drive-by posting" like this?

 

[TOS Purist]

I notice you snipped the part of ST-One's post about offering a sensible counter-argument...

Actually he snipped MY post about offering a sensible counter-argument.

But ST-One still went ahead and just proved my point; they don't even bother reading the posts of the "dissenters," even if they're well thought-out and quite reasonable. They certainly can't come up with good counter-arguments.

Like Lawman says, it IS "drive-by posting." Someone makes a good, thorough claim, with many valid points and observations, and the only response is "NUH-UH!"

 

[Jeyl]

And where exactly would be the problem about Scotty being the comic relief in this movie?

Because he wasn't one to begin with? I don't know about you, but I never saw him as a comic relief character since a lot of great Scotty episodes hardly involve him being comedic. The Doomsday Machine, A Taste of Armageddon, Wolf in the Fold, The Lights of Zetar. He had as much comical moments in the series as anyone else.

In Trek09, every thing he says and does in meant to bring out a laugh. Humor isn't what made Scotty work, it was his character. Labeling Scotty as simple comic relief is a hinderance, not a benefit.

 

[lawman]

I notice you snipped the part of ST-One's post about offering a sensible counter-argument...

Actually he snipped MY post about offering a sensible counter-argument.

Whoops! Sorry. Edited to correct. Thanks for not taking offense!

The rest of your post is spot-on, though. It baffles me when people come to a discussion forum yet seem to have no interest in serious, honest discussion.

(And if you think it's bad here, just check out a few political boards. I swear, just from their posting styles here, I think I can guess where some of these folks get their news and how they vote. But I won't go there...)

---
BTW, Jeyl, good point about Scotty. I would've thought it was self-evident (that he had more depth than this film allowed), but apparently not to everyone...

 

[stonester1]

---
BTW, Jeyl, good point about Scotty. I would've thought it was self-evident (that he had more depth than this film allowed), but apparently not to everyone...

Of course he does. But this is a movie. This is not the first Star Trek movie BY FAR in which characters got short changed. Scotty is a favorite of mine (and so is Pegg), so I do hope he gets more in the second film. But what he had, I did enjoy, rather than make another checkmark in my little book on yet another reason the film "sucked".

I am a passionate fan. And I LOVED this movie.