"I like the new movie better..."

[PorthosShadow]

Btw, for those comparing this movie to 90210, I would like to point out that compared to a lot of other teen or young adult programing of it's time 90210 was fairly mature.

OUCH! Damning with faint praise, aren't we?

Let me clarify, detractors love to use 90210 as an easy way of saying how childish and immature the cast was. However, at least in the original 90210, the cast was rather unchild like. I just don't think the comparison is applicable with regards to the cast of the movie acting like spoiled brats when that wasn't really the tone of the show they are comparing it to, that's all.

 

[ST-One]

JJ's Trek would have been BETTER if it had not gone for "hip" with so-called "modern" pacing, camera work, etc.

You really should stop quoting from that Onion-video.

 

[number6]

There is, in my opinion, a difference between stylistic differences and bad film making. The design of the new Enterprise (which I liked) is a stylistic difference. Washing out the frame with lens flares and spinning axis fx shots are bad film making.

Yeah, but that is a stylistic choice. Just like when they invented the steadycam and you had all those running camera shots like the maze chase in the Shining in every film. Someone decides to do something silly or bold and unconventional and it catches on as a style. There was even shaky cam in ENT. It didn't bother me because it worked for the action of the scene. I do think the pacing of this film was pretty frantic, but in doing so there is so much information crammed into this film.

 

[PorthosShadow]

The 90210 comparison is baseless. If someone is going to do that kind of comparison it does imply that he or she actually watched that show and I don't know how many cynical Trek fans are going to willingly admit that on this board.

I don't care because I liked 90210 and I really can't say why but it was entertaining. Not to get too far off topic but why does the stereotype of a Star Trek fan always one that only likes science fiction. I'm a science fiction fan but there are TV shows and movies that aren't with in that genre. For me "90210" is an example of that. We don't all have to like the same thing. As the sayin goes, "Different strokes for different folks"

 

[number6]

The 90210 comparison is baseless. If someone is going to do that kind of comparison it does imply that he or she actually watched that show and I don't know how many cynical Trek fans are going to willingly admit that on this board.

I don't care because I liked 90210 and I really can't say why but it was entertaining. Not to get too far off topic but why does the stereotype of a Star Trek fan always one that only likes science fiction. I'm a science fiction fan but there are TV shows and movies that aren't with in that genre. For me "90210" is an example of that. We don't all have to like the same thing. As the sayin goes, "Different strokes for different folks"

No offense, but 90210 was a shit show. That's why it offends me that people think of the new film as 90210 in space. It isn't. It's The Young Star Trek Chronicles.

 

[PorthosShadow]

The 90210 comparison is baseless. If someone is going to do that kind of comparison it does imply that he or she actually watched that show and I don't know how many cynical Trek fans are going to willingly admit that on this board.

I don't care because I liked 90210 and I really can't say why but it was entertaining. Not to get too far off topic but why does the stereotype of a Star Trek fan always one that only likes science fiction. I'm a science fiction fan but there are TV shows and movies that aren't with in that genre. For me "90210" is an example of that. We don't all have to like the same thing. As the sayin goes, "Different strokes for different folks"

No offense, but 90210 was a shit show. That's why it offends me that people think of the new film as 90210 in space. It isn't. It's The Young Star Trek Chronicles.

I'm not offended but I think we agree one way or another that the comparrison isn't valid. Star Trek this time around is about young people setting off on a great adventure. Btw, the 90210 comparrison was wrongly used to knock a DS9 episode but that was in the prime Trekbbs

 

[number6]

I don't care because I liked 90210 and I really can't say why but it was entertaining. Not to get too far off topic but why does the stereotype of a Star Trek fan always one that only likes science fiction. I'm a science fiction fan but there are TV shows and movies that aren't with in that genre. For me "90210" is an example of that. We don't all have to like the same thing. As the sayin goes, "Different strokes for different folks"

No offense, but 90210 was a shit show. That's why it offends me that people think of the new film as 90210 in space. It isn't. It's The Young Star Trek Chronicles.

I'm not offended but I think we agree one way or another that the comparrison isn't valid. Star Trek this time around is about young people setting off on a great adventure. Btw, the 90210 comparrison was wrongly used to knock a DS9 episode but that was in the prime Trekbbs

And that was wrong too. That was more like Taps in space.

 

[PorthosShadow]

No offense, but 90210 was a shit show. That's why it offends me that people think of the new film as 90210 in space. It isn't. It's The Young Star Trek Chronicles.

I'm not offended but I think we agree one way or another that the comparrison isn't valid. Star Trek this time around is about young people setting off on a great adventure. Btw, the 90210 comparrison was wrongly used to knock a DS9 episode but that was in the prime Trekbbs

And that was wrong too. That was more like Taps in space.

Minus Will Wheaton, lol and hey the way cadets were potrayed in "The Valliant" was great and not nearly as childish and some viewers claim, same with the new Star Trek movie. I think that some have selective viewing and only see what they want to see so they have an excuse to piss and moan about something.

 

[ST-One]

There is, in my opinion, a difference between stylistic differences and bad film making. The design of the new Enterprise (which I liked) is a stylistic difference. Washing out the frame with lens flares and spinning axis fx shots are bad film making.

By what measure are these things bad film making?
You can like or dislike the use of lens flares in that film (they didn't bother or distract me from anything).
'Spinning axis fx shots'... I guess you are referring to the space-shots where the free-spinning camera indicates that there (unlike most of the older Trek or most other SciFi-films) is no 'up' and 'down' in space?
How is that 'bad film making'?

 

[number6]

I'm not offended but I think we agree one way or another that the comparrison isn't valid. Star Trek this time around is about young people setting off on a great adventure. Btw, the 90210 comparrison was wrongly used to knock a DS9 episode but that was in the prime Trekbbs

And that was wrong too. That was more like Taps in space.

Minus Will Wheaton, lol and hey the way cadets were potrayed in "The Valliant" was great and not nearly as childish and some viewers claim, same with the new Star Trek movie. I think that some have selective viewing and only see what they want to see so they have an excuse to piss and moan about something.

Watch Taps, then rewatch the Valiant, then get back to me.
There is no way that episode could be accused of sending up anything else.

There were also some comparisons to Starship Troopers and I don't think that one is very accurate either. The cast pretty much nailed who they were supposed to be: younger versions of the TOS crew, and I think it worked..at least for me.

 

[Devon]

Frankly, I like the movie; I just thought if they'd have put a little more thought and effort into it that it really could've made everyone happy, even Warped9.

That's a very silly comment. First, when have you ever known a Star Trek film or any film that EVERYONE liked? You haven't, I haven't, and the writers haven't either. That is completely unrealistic. Their only obligation in this case was to deliver the best product they felt appropriate. What's being ignored is that this Trek XI is actually amongst the most LIKED installments in the franchise. So by your logic, they actually put more thought and effort into this film than 90% of anyone else in franchise history.

Well sure. Just imagine if they did a little more research

Tell us all what "research" you believe would have made a financial or critical difference to this film.

,instead of incorporating elements of Star Wars into it just to make it "HIP".

All three Star Wars references?

I mean look how much it made domestically and worldwide. I read some where that its budget took a big chunk out of that. Just imagine if they could have pulled in myself and others that feel the same way I do.

It would have made about $300.00 more, realistically. The amount of fans who were bothered by small detail is greatly exaggerated in this case.

Why can't they make a film that pleases BOTH fandoms? One of the best received films in the series (IV) did that quite well.

Done

View Poll Results: Grade the movie...
Excellent

695 63.53%
Above Average

205 18.74%
Average

81 7.40%
Below Average

39 3.56%
Poor

74 6.76%

Voters: 1094.

http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=90455

 

[Psion]

Why can't they make a film that pleases BOTH fandoms? One of the best received films in the series (IV) did that quite well.

Done

View Poll Results: Grade the movie...
Excellent

695 63.53%
Above Average

205 18.74%
Average

81 7.40%
Below Average

39 3.56%
Poor

74 6.76%

Voters: 1094.

http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=90455

Note that while I don't expect the results to change significantly, that poll was found in the Trek XI+ forum ... an area where people who don't like the film are as likely to go. This introduces a selection bias. Even I hadn't seen it.

 

[Pauln6]

Love or hate the lens flare (less is more I think) there's no doubt that it was a good movie - it had pace, good performances, and a rollicking action story. Certain people were never going to accept any kind of reboot but I think most of the criticisms relate to relatively minor aspects of the plot itself - choices that they made which could have been handled a bit better.

I certainly enjoyed it but would have tweaked maybe a dozen things to paper over some of the plot holes, contrivances, childish Starfleet practices, and technology abuse. I would also have given Number One, T'Pau, and Janice Rand minor roles to even up the imbalance of the sexes.

 

[Captain Mike]

That's a very silly comment. First, when have you ever known a Star Trek film or any film that EVERYONE liked? You haven't, I haven't, and the writers haven't either. That is completely unrealistic. Their only obligation in this case was to deliver the best product they felt appropriate. What's being ignored is that this Trek XI is actually amongst the most LIKED installments in the franchise. So by your logic, they actually put more thought and effort into this film than 90% of anyone else in franchise history.

That is because there has ALWAYS fans that think they know of what STAR TREK should be. And just like this film which changed many perceptions of what the franchise was all about, has garnered that side of "fandom"

Well sure. Just imagine if they did a little more research

Tell us all what "research" you believe would have made a financial or critical difference to this film.

All three Star Wars references?

My point being is, Yes Orci & Kurtzman stated they were STAR TREK fans, yes the "complimentary" nod moments ( i.e.. tribbles, the slight reference to character dialogue(( I'm givin' her all she's got!!!!)) which technically he NEVER said). If they did there would have been a better thought put into a story EVERYONE would flock to see.

I mean look how much it made domestically and worldwide. I read some where that its budget took a big chunk out of that. Just imagine if they could have pulled in myself and others that feel the same way I do.

It would have made about $300.00 more, realistically. The amount of fans who were bothered by small detail is greatly exaggerated in this case.

And you get your info where? I know if they would have done as I suggested, YES I would have gone multiple times myself to see it in the theater. Multiply that by how many more posters on here that think negative on this board alone. And we see that your logic to thinking what you do is totally false.

Why can't they make a film that pleases BOTH fandoms? One of the best received films in the series (IV) did that quite well.

Done

Again you put your own perception on "since this movie hit it big financially" (although it took a big loss from its budget) that this STAR TREK pleased BOTH sides. Which is wwwaaayyy far from the truth in itself.

 

[Potemkin_Prod]

Frankly, I like the movie; I just thought if they'd have put a little more thought and effort into it that it really could've made everyone happy, even Warped9.

That's a very silly comment. First, when have you ever known a Star Trek film or any film that EVERYONE liked? You haven't, I haven't, and the writers haven't either. That is completely unrealistic. Their only obligation in this case was to deliver the best product they felt appropriate.

Actually, it's not silly to ask that they put a little more effort into their production. Or are you thinking that they didn't have the skill to do this?

What's being ignored is that this Trek XI is actually amongst the most LIKED installments in the franchise.

Ad populum and basing it on a self-selected survey in a biased forum.

So by your logic, they actually put more thought and effort into this film than 90% of anyone else in franchise history.

No, they simply paid a little lip service to TOS, and wrote the story they wanted to write. It had the feel of TOS more than Modern Trek does, but it fell short of hitting it out of the park for me.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

A lot of my friends liked Star Trek 90210 and they hated all prior trek!

I didn't see that movie.

The "90210" reference is, BTW and despite the minimal existence of a current spinoff, more than a decade out of date. It's lame and makes the user appear somewhat of a follower and out of touch.

I'd suggest you work on some variation using the "Twilight" movie series as the jumping-off point. It will be no more original, but won't look quite so clueless.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Whatever, man.. It's kind of insulting to constantly insinuate that the only people that liked the new film weren't fans but simple minded people who are easily impressed with shiny objects.

It's also foolish, since it's demonstrably untrue. It's rather as if someone took to posting "Only rocking chairs like the new movie! Only rocking chairs like the new movie!" That would suggest some troubling things about the poster, while reflecting not at all on the film or its enthusiastic audience.

 

[number6]

Whatever, man.. It's kind of insulting to constantly insinuate that the only people that liked the new film weren't fans but simple minded people who are easily impressed with shiny objects.

It's also foolish, since it's demonstrably untrue. It's rather as if someone took to posting "Only rocking chairs like the new movie! Only rocking chairs like the new movie!" That would suggest some troubling things about the poster, while reflecting not at all on the film or its enthusiastic audience.

Why do you hate rocking chairs, Dennis?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Most of them vote to the Right.

 

[Alex1939]

I didn't see that movie.

The "90210" reference is, BTW and despite the minimal existence of a current spinoff, more than a decade out of date. It's lame and makes the user appear somewhat of a follower and out of touch.

I'd suggest you work on some variation using the "Twilight" movie series as the jumping-off point. It will be no more original, but won't look quite so clueless.

For those that didn't get it, like Dennis, the 90210 reference was made because of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAjmbASkkLY


I know you're a very old man, but I figure you've heard of youtube.