Wait a sec, when the conversation switch to NuBSG?
ST09 critics, why don't you like it?
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
- Status
Wait a sec, when the conversation switch to NuBSG?
Oh no you didn't!
As for Jeyl's analysis, I completely disagree, just so it's clear.
I've got a feeling that the next movie is gonna be even better, too, in the absence of having to re-establish characters for a new viewing audience.
Well, when you've got nowhere to go but up...
Well, when you've got nowhere to go but up...
..."even"...
You know, that's a good point that I haven't seen made before. In the old days, part of the attraction of the whole thing was that Trek's future seemed so appealing, and in particular the idea of serving in Starfleet seemed like, y'know, a dream job (so long as you don't wear a red shirt, at least). Now? Really not.
And it's not just the characters. The whole ethos of exploration seems to be missing from this movie, too.
Don't tempt fate...Well, when you've got nowhere to go but up...
Jeyl mentions that they are a-holes. I agree that a big problem was that many of the main characters come off as unprofessional and not really officer material. The only characters that are believable as officers are Captain Pike, Captain Robau, and Lt. George Kirk. Those guys are leaders who know about sacrifice and duty. I might have considered Spock but he seems too compromised by his girlfriend. Kirk seems more like an enlisted gun-ho jock who could lead a squad into combat, but not a starship crew. Just my two cents.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Well, when you've got nowhere to go but up...
Let's see Orci and Kurzman also wrote:
Transformers and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.
Nope, it's going to get worse. And that's pretty damn impressive, you pretty much have to do it deliberately.
It's the major problem with all these people who, "It's an introductory movie. The next one will be better and have a story." No, it won't. JJ and the studio see dollar signs, JJ likes Star Wars; the next movie is going to be no different than this.
Yes, and Spielberg has directed his share of bad movies.
Your point?
Transformers is not an apt comparision, because even the superior first film and animated films were fundamentally about big robots beating the shit out of each other. That's it.
Your point?
Transformers is not an apt comparision, because even the superior first film and animated films were fundamentally about big robots beating the shit out of each other. That's it.
If you want a good example of this, listen to the new commentary for the Star Trek: First Contact DVD/BluRay by Damon Lindelof and Anthony Pascale.
Anthony, who heads trekmovie.com, makes some very nice points in regards to the consistency regarding Picard's character like when he kills an officer who is being assimilated by the Borg when it's been proven that when you go Borg, you can go back. Damon however justifies Picard's actions because he doesn't want the crew member to live with the experience of being a borg.
The most important point Anthony brings up is the lack of involvement with Dr. Crusher. She doesn't really do anything in the whole entire movie, but when the opportunity for her to do something she's done previously in The Next Generations series comes up, it's instead handed over to Lily's character. Damon also justifies this because Lily represents the audience and most audiences don't know who Beverly Crusher is.
It's understandable, and for what the movie gave us, it was handled very well. But I'm going to be honest. Lily is just a one time character. When she's gone, that's it. Crusher on the other hand is a member of the main cast who has a very detailed history with Picard, the Borg and everything else that could have played out very well if it was only written that way.
So here you have Anthony who has a fond fascination with the history of Star Trek and questions the writing choices, where with Damon you have a guy who is a pure 'by the books' producer who is more concerned with getting as many people into the theater as possible than getting the story right. And wouldn't you know it? Damon is not only going to produce the next movie, he's also going to take part in the writing process.
And yes, he also labels Scotty as pure comic relief.
I notice your quote...and would point out that "Requiem for Methuselah" would disagree with you.
Then he's an idiot who doesn't really know the Scotty's background. Then again why should Scotty be treated any different then the rest of the characters?
Here again is another piece of nonsense. Just as nuKirk gets a command he doesn't deserve far too early than could ever be justified nuScotty starts acting as Chief Engineer when he's just come onto the ship with nuKirk and Nimoy/Spock. Then, of course, next thing he is Chief Engineer and no one raises an eyebrow.
Complete nonsense. But then the film is full of such things.
Nero's ship: Here is supposedly a mining vessel that happens to be bigger than anything you can imagine and has the firepower (even if it's from a future) that can obliterate whole squadrons or fleets of ships. It has zero sense of logic in relation to what it's supposed to be, but ah it looks badass. It looks more like something the Shadows of Babylon 5 would be flying. And the internal arrangement is also ridiculous. People complain about Starfleet's chairs not having restraints (a fair criticism), but Nero's ship doesn't have any railings anywhere! Never mind in a battle, if you slip and loose your footing just walking along you plunge to your death.
Last edited:
Actually, it looks more like a Vorlon ship...ie squid-esqu. Not so much Romulan, but then, it's been heavily augmented by Romulan manipulated Borg tech...so that kind of freakshow could produce something like that.
I-Am-Zim
Captain
That was not addressed in the film. According to Nero's own words in the movie, "In my time, where I come from, this is a simple mining vessel". Countdown doesn't count. Average moviegoers shouldn't have to read it to get that info. In the movie, it was a Romulan mining ship. That's all.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Indeed. We can't bring up the comic to justify anything in the movie, since the majority of the audience will never see that comic.
That said, to them this is what a Romulan mining-ship looks like, simply because that's how the movie explains it.
The Narada may not look like the Romulan military vessels we've been shown before, but we also had to accept that the remote-(mind)-controlled ship in the Romulan-episodes in ENT were supposed to be Romulan designs (I'm aware, of course, that this model was originally used in VOY).
The Narada seems to be a continuation of that design aesthetic.
Of course, it's a "simple mining vessel". But Nero is also insane, and has been stewing in his insanity for 25 years. Besides, remember all that technobabble exposition that you guys want to explain x, y, or z?
This would be just more of that. No need to explain this "simple mining ship", since the people who would get twisted about it don't amount to much in numbers.
But, for the record, the "unofficial" explanation WAS written by the guys who also wrote the script for this film.
One is free to accept it or not. I accept it. Don't care if it's "teh canon". It makes sense.
The end.
Case in point, you want, for whatever reason, Warped9 to buy into an idea that SpockPrime isn't even "our" Spock, because of clues YOU have put together in the film, in defiance of anything the writers have had to say.
So...let's not pretend that you are content to just go along with what the writers "officially" intended.
It does NOT make sense for a mining ship to be so pimped out, so there must be an explanation. But then, I'm a lifelong Trek fan who knows something about ships in this setting. The mainstream filmgoer doesn't care and isn't going to need all the technobabble.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
I think it's nice that they have thought up an explanation for the Narada's look.
But I also think that explanation isn't necessary for the film.
I think it's nice that they have thought up an explanation for the Narada's look.
But I also think that explanation isn't necessary for the film.
Agreed, else it would be in there.
The ultimate excuse of "the mainstream don't know and don't care and so whatever goes is fine" is getting tiresome. It's just an excuse for bad writing and bad, lazy conceptual thing.
You don't come up with any cogent arguments to counter justified criticisms. All you can say is, "So what? It made money. We like it. Who cares?"
As fans we care, and our opinion is just as valid as anyone's.
To put it bluntly: the evidence all over this film is that the thinking behind every aspect of it was juvenile. Even within the context of itself, its own universe, nothing in this film makes any sense whatsoever.
You don't come up with any cogent arguments to counter justified criticisms. All you can say is, "So what? It made money. We like it. Who cares?"
As fans we care, and our opinion is just as valid as anyone's.
To put it bluntly: the evidence all over this film is that the thinking behind every aspect of it was juvenile. Even within the context of itself, its own universe, nothing in this film makes any sense whatsoever.
In your opinion. Others differ. And yes, I've seen the plethora of counter arguments. But let's be honest here, it's not about "logic" or other such bullshit that has you going on here. It's clear from your invective that you hate this film, you WANT to hate this film and you've made it clear more than once that you also allow your opinion of this film to color the supporters of it, beyond reason.
You dress it up in logic and reason...but you fool no one, except your miniscule amen chorus.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
