A
Amaris
Guest
No, Devon's not shifting the goalposts.
"I like the new movie better..."
- Thread starter darkshadow0001
- Start date
No, Devon's not shifting the goalposts.
The poster I was responding to was trying to make a "point" by changing the parameters of the original question after SpaceTherapist's post in that those didn't all happen in one episode (it doesn't matter since it doesn't take away the fact that those things did happen,) thus why Trek XI is supposedly "the devil."
Ok, I think I just misunderstood your wording there.
I think even if he did make that different argument, it is not invalid though. If the movie was seen as in two hours containing a large culmination of Trek's previously perceived problems spread out over a large span of time, I can understand why he might see that as a problem. I'm not sure I agree with that position, but that's probably because some flaws are pretty subjective.
I think even if he did make that different argument, it is not invalid though. If the movie was seen as in two hours containing a large culmination of Trek's previously perceived problems spread out over a large span of time, I can understand why he might see that as a problem. I'm not sure I agree with that position, but that's probably because some flaws are pretty subjective.
A
Amaris
Guest
It's all pretty subjective, really. I mean, we argue over the movie's merits and demerits, but it all comes down to taste. Me, I love the movie, think it's a great homage to the original series, and is in the same spirit as the show. You don't agree, and that's fine. I have an eclectic taste in movies anyway, so I'm used to people not agreeing when I like certain films.
I think it all boils down to our love of Star Trek. Some of us are so devoted to it, we see it as a personal insult to try to change it so much, and I can understand that. For some of us, Star Trek was a friend, a companion growing up. I was a nerd when I was a kid (not much has changed now), and even though I got laughed at, spit on, hated at school, I knew that I could come home to Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Uhura and all the others, and revel in my nerdiness with people who would accept me for who I was.
Let's face it; we're not going to get anywhere here. Look at this topic. It will just go on and on and on, in circles, and for people who love that kind of thing, great, but I get tired of it after a while, because I'm not in it to go around in circles, I just like to share my thoughts and I really am genuinely interested in discussion and debate.
Really, this entire thread can be summed up in two statements:
"I like the Star Trek movie and think it is fun and worth seeing."
"I dislike the Star Trek movie and think it's the wrong direction for Star Trek to follow."
Very few viewpoints will change throughout this thread. I'd much rather talk about Star Trek as something to enjoy, not to fight over, and yeah, I know, we're nerds, but still, we can enjoy Trek without a bunch of circular arguments that will end up going nowhere.
I think this is the point many people try to make. Trek contradicted itself many times over many years but rarely within the confines of the same episode. I say rarely but I'd be interested to know if people can cite episodes where they did so.
Different writers contradicting each each other is an unfortunate by-product of having such a long running show but expecting long term consistency is setting a much higher standard than the one being laid at NuTrek.
Some flaws are subjective, while others are objective and people's tolerance for them is subjective.
The third statement to which I adhere is:
"I liked Star Trek but wish the movie had displayed greater internal consistency, less reliance on outrageous coincidences, a more 21st century attitude to the role of women in action movies, and a more mature approach (i.e. less juvenile) to Starfleet's pre-established goals and ideals."
ST-One
Vice Admiral
I have a short memory for pointless detail; please point out where Star Trek contradicted itself.
This, thanks. And to clarify, Devon accused me of arguing "those things didn't happen", which is BS because I never said that.
add:
Yeah, whatever
To me, it's being treated like any other ST movie or series or episode. Some people like it and some people have problems with it. Some adore it, others hate it. Big Deal. Except XI is being propped up as the holy grail or something, because there's this almost hostile intolerance to anything negative.
Last edited:
As in the recent movie? Specificity doesn't really matter but people can list them here if they choose - there are many threads on the site discussing them (and probably earlier in this thread too). It seems that you place yourself in the category that liked the movie and either didn't perceive any flaws or perceived them but your subjective view was that they didn't matter - hence they are 'pointless' details. Your position on the spectrum is clear.
I'm in the middle - I liked it but I wish they had tweaked it to smooth over the inconsistencies.
Other people loathe the movie because they were a bit slack and/or because the change of pace isn't what they want from Trek.
Reasons vary but those are the three broad categories.
Watch Plan 9 from Outer Space - it truly deserves its place in Hollywood fame as 'the Worst of Hollywood'. If you can sit through that and think there is nothing wrong then you'll know that what you definition of 'pointless detail' is waaay higher than a lot of other people. Plus Plan 9 is hilariously brilliant in its awfulness. In one scene a woman is being chased at night - she runs out onto the road into broad daylight because they 'forgot' to ink in the night sky
And was rewarded by getting another ship.
Mind you, it was a ship that was about to be junked and he was demoted in rank before being assigned to (not given) the replacement ship. The Admiralty recognised that he had to be punished officially for his actions while simultaneously knowing that it was really a back-handed reward.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
But if you've already stated that you didn't notice or didn't care then surely specifying them will just lead you to say that you didn't notice or didn't care to each of the specific items? Are you suggesting that demonstrating the faults will lead you to jump from your current category of fan to my category?
But if you've already stated that you didn't notice or didn't care then surely specifying them will just lead you to say that you didn't notice or didn't care to each of the specific items? Are you suggesting that demonstrating the faults will lead you to jump from your current category of fan to my category?
While I'm in your camp, I don't really recall any self-contradictions in Trek09, either. Sure it had ridiculous coincidences, unbelievable character development, and bad art direction, but the story held itself together fairly well. Perhaps there are problems lurking in Nero's 25-year exile/imprisonment, but the film itself leaves that unexplained. The Red Matter stuff also introduces some slight contradictions in that it seemed to require a hole to be drilled in a planet before it created a black hole, but the Jellyfish caused a collapse within the Narada itself ... so that raises the question of why Nero had to waste time drilling holes. But this I chalk up to silly-science and a poorly-thought out plot device.
I agree...Kirk was well known for his first five-year mission, let alone probably his second one also (although that was not really established). Starfleet Command didn't want to lose an officer of that caliber, NOT because it was the character....
Where was it ever stated that the Enterprise-A was about to be junked when Kirk assumed command? Are you referring to its being decommissioned at the end of Star Trek VI? By no means does that imply that the ship was to be junked. How do you know that it wasn't headed for the Starfleet Museum?
Says who?
Everything in ST IV and ST V suggest that it's a brand new ship, and absolutely nowhere in the films is it implied that the ship was about to be junked.
This is a pretty lame attempt to excuse oldTrek for doing a silly thing that it did with some frequency, which was to completely excuse or reward insubordinate or illegal behavior as long as Our Heroes did it.
Well ok then - I suppose it depends on your definition of contradiction but I'd chalk that one one up to a contradiction personally. Others that spring to mind include raising shields and then being damaged by debris, speed of plot varies wildly (speed Earth to Vulcan, Rura Penthe to Vulcan, Vulcan to Earth (including comparative speeds of Enterprise & Narada), they can teach students to speak Romulan fluently but can't rely upon universal translators to idnetify & translate the language etc. I'm sure there are others. Bear in mind I've only seen the movie twice and not for perhaps 3 months.
Yes, these are minor errors, I never said they weren't, but they're a bit silly and careless, and I'd prefer the movie without them, hence I'm in the middle category.
No silly - the ship they blew up was about to be junked. Somebody has to be in charge of the new ship and Kirk is still a serving officer with a good track record. On paper at least Kirk is punished but in practice he is rewarded. It's the other crew that get off lightly - on paper - although I would say that their careers do seem to take a knock - Sulu's command is delayed, Chekov is demoted to navigator position (having previously been a chief tactical officer and first officer) and Uhura is still opening hailing frequencies way down the chain of command.
It's a bit silly but not as silly as promoting a cadet with no experience to captain with a crew of department heads (apart from Spock and Scotty) with no experience. Actually I suppose it's only Uhura and McCoy who are department heads really, which isn't so bad.
It's exactly as unlikely to actually happen.
I'm sorry, you think the Navy would go easy on a group of officers who stole a ship and crashed it somewhere, creating an international incident, simply because it was going to be decommissioned? Fail.
All of the trekkie criticism of Abrams's movie that's predicated on drawing some distinction in terms of plausibility or intelligence between it and oldTrek only works when the critics aren't required to hold both to the same standards.
It's exactly as unlikely to actually happen.
I'm sorry, you think the Navy would go easy on a group of officers who stole a ship and crashed it somewhere, creating an international incident, simply because it was going to be decommissioned? Fail.
All of the trekkie criticism of Abrams's movie that's predicated on drawing some distinction in terms of plausibility or intelligence between it and oldTrek only works when the critics aren't required to hold both to the same standards.
They may both be unlikely but they are not EXACTLY the same. Kirk and his crew were punished on paper because their careers suffered. Just because they quite enjoyed that punishment and the brass kind of figured that they would doesn't mean its not some kind of punishment.
Now if the enquiry into Kirk's cock up in TWoK is taken into account too then I might query whether he isn't past it a bit.
Not that I entirely disagree that their punishment is silly. Just not as silly as putting an inexperienced, risk-taking, insubordinate 25 year old in charge of a starship for taking action that should have earned him a commendation and maybe a medal but not a command.
Similar threads
