Ideas You Hope To NEVER See In The New Films
- Thread starter Kamdan
- Start date
I read enough spoilers, saw enough photos, etc. to know that I was not sufficiently impressed to spend any part of my lifespan actually watching this thing in a theatre.
Tell us why you think that, despite having not even seen it, you continue to waste your time telling us how bad it is. Because you're coming across like the Trekkie version of an ignorant fundamentalist.
You haven't seen the film, so your opinion is invalid.
Yeah.... this line of logic just doesn't cut it.
I don't enjoy opera and I don't enjoy NASCAR, but I would be oblivious to reality if I stated that other people didn't enjoy these things and therefore they are not things that possess quality-- as if MY lack of enjoyment of something is any kind of accurate measure of that thing's quality. I dislike wine. So wine is not a thing that possesses quality?
... Please simply say that you did not care for the movie. That is sufficient. To extrapolate anything beyond that regarding that film's quality is just silly behavior and can often continue on to bordering on ranting or braying at the moon.
I was there in PJs watching the screen the first time that "Nancy Crater" returned to her M113 creature form and tried to suck the salt out of Kirk. I have enjoyed Trek (various forms to different degrees) ever since. I loved Trek XI (not to say I loved the brewery, however!). Looking forward to Trek XII.
Self-proclaimed "Trek Purists" seem to think they own Trek. They exclaim, "You kids keep off my lawn!", not understanding that it is not a lawn, but a big park. A big park that they do not even own.
Exactly, Trek was never meant to an exclusive club catering only to a select group of afficionados. It debuted on NBC for pete's sake and was intended for the general tv audience.
And plenty of us old-timers think the new movie gave the franchise a much-needed dose of adrenalin.
If I felt I was wasting my time, I would not bother to come back here. And I have said why I felt it was not good Trek. If you read my previous posts in this thread and others in this forum (excluding the Shouting Spock thread), you'll see my reasons why.
That's your opinion.
Opera may have quality, but since I'm not (much) of an opera fan, I'd have trouble perceiving it. Quality is a personal perception. One person's idea of something that has quality does not necessarily match another's. We both have different ideas of the quality of nuTrek.
If I was strictly a canon-only fan, I wouldn't have YOUR books in my Star Trek library, would I?And I recognize that it's a huge public lawn, but that doesn't mean I have to like what some people do on it.
I would have to disagree here. While OPINION is indeed a personal perception, QUALITY must be something larger than one person's (or a small group of people's) personal perception in order to have real meaning.
This is also assuming that there is a larger community/population (beyond the person with a relevant opinion) that has experience with and interest in the subject. I believe that this is the case here.
If Trek is ice cream (and assuming everyone here says that they are familiar with ice cream and we all like some flavor(s) of ice cream), I can't say that strawberry ice cream is not quality ice cream simply because I favor chocolate and do not care for strawberry.
I guess (thankfully) the majority of fans have a more expansive view of what Star Trek (and hopefully, ice cream, too) can be.
Last edited:
Because Chekov is some kind of super-duper smart wunderkind, I heard...
Chekov was also born four years earlier (making his the most justified recasting in the film, since he's explicitly a genetic "brother" of Chekov-Prime and not the same guy), and Kirk entered the Academy four years later.
So I guess what you heard was incomplete. Maybe you should stop bragging about how you may as well have already seen the movie and trying to discuss it critically with people who have.
Timewalker, unless you've seen the movie firsthand you can't say if it's "good" or "bad". All you can do is say "I don't like what I've heard about it" and "I don't think I would like it". Anything more is truly meaningless.
But this is the internet! You don't actually need to see anything to form a complete opinion on it!
You can all take my opinion any way you want (or don't want). It's still my opinion. Yes, I'm quite aware I'm in the minority in this particular forum. Can any of you HONESTLY say you've never formed an opinion about some book, movie, or TV show if you haven't had (much) experience with it? Ever decided not to see or read something because it had bad reviews?Stop pitching stones at me, 'k?
I think some people may be perceiving it as you presenting your opinions as fact rather than...well, opinions. There's a valid argument to be made that that's more semantics than anything else, but, of course, wars have started over matters of semantics...
I'm not saying you should have to do this, or even necessarily should if you don't feel inclined, but maybe you should take more care to qualify your opinions as "Maybe it really is a good movie, but what I saw didn't inspire me to see it. My loss if I'm wrong," or such.
I hope I haven't ruffled your feathers with this, just trying to shed some light on how I'm reading the conversation.
I'm not saying you should have to do this, or even necessarily should if you don't feel inclined, but maybe you should take more care to qualify your opinions as "Maybe it really is a good movie, but what I saw didn't inspire me to see it. My loss if I'm wrong," or such.
I hope I haven't ruffled your feathers with this, just trying to shed some light on how I'm reading the conversation.
Not so determinedly, arrogantly negative, no. I even gave Bayformers half a chance. Nor, I suspect, have many of us devoted a lot of time to posting repeatedly why and how we knew that something we chose not to see was irredeemably awful.
I mean yeah, your statements here are beyond silly. Catch.
Anything related to the god awful Next Gen
Children and kindergardens on battleships
Ships that look like the inside of a Hilton Garden Inn
Ships with a million bright white protholes and way too much glowing neon that make the ship look like a Christmas ornament
a psychiatrist sitting next to the captain helping him make command decisions during critcal tactical events and battles
Whoopie Goldberg and her awful giant hat
Viking-Apache-Ronin Klingons buried under far too much terrible looking makeup and fright teeth chanting more Bloodwine
Next Genified Klingons, Romulans
Sitting around a conference table for hours spewing technobable and sipping tea and finally letting the ships psychiatrist influence a crucial battle situation
Anything Next Genified
Children and kindergardens on battleships
Ships that look like the inside of a Hilton Garden Inn
Ships with a million bright white protholes and way too much glowing neon that make the ship look like a Christmas ornament
a psychiatrist sitting next to the captain helping him make command decisions during critcal tactical events and battles
Whoopie Goldberg and her awful giant hat
Viking-Apache-Ronin Klingons buried under far too much terrible looking makeup and fright teeth chanting more Bloodwine
Next Genified Klingons, Romulans
Sitting around a conference table for hours spewing technobable and sipping tea and finally letting the ships psychiatrist influence a crucial battle situation
Anything Next Genified
I have stated that I am posting my opinions. How much clearer should I be?
How's this:
In my OPINION, the nuTrek stuff, what I've seen of it, is crap. Due to the lamentable quality of what I know about it, I am not optimistic that the rest of it is any better. Therefore, if any more Star Trek movies are ever made, I would not like to see ANYTHING remotely like the Abramsverse stuff. I would, however, be open to something that was closer to the original material set out in TOS.
Is that better?
No, because your opinion is open for attack as soon as it doesn't fit in here.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
